0 Votes

Wiki source code of Common Arguments

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

version	line-number	content
19.1	1	{{success}}
	2	These drop down style arguments are done using the expandable macro. Simply edit the page and type /expandable (it will open a selection box)
	3	{{/success}}
12.1	4
14.1	5	{{expandable summary="We will all become one uniform Mixed Race"}}
33.1	6	Claim: Over time, humanity will homogenize into one race of mixed-race individuals due to globalization and intermixing.
14.1	7
33.1	8	Rebuttal:
14.1	9
33.1	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
14.1	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
20.1	15
	16	[[See also: White Genocide for statistics on this>>doc:Main Categories.Race.White Genocide.WebHome]]
14.1	17	{{/expandable}}
	18
16.1	19	{{expandable summary="There is no discrimination against White people"}}
10.1	20	Claim: DEI is necessary to address historical inequities and does not disadvantage white men.
	21
	22	Rebuttal:
	23
	24	* DEI initiatives often include hiring quotas or preferences that explicitly exclude white men, creating new forms of systemic bias.
	25	* Surveys and anecdotal evidence show that many companies deprioritize white male candidates to meet diversity metrics.
	26	* Addressing historical inequities doesn’t justify creating new disparities, particularly when these policies fail to account for merit.
	27
	28	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.
16.1	29	{{/expandable}}
10.1	30
16.1	31	{{expandable summary="IQ disparities across groups are entirely due to environment"}}
10.1	32	Claim: Differences in IQ between groups are solely the result of environmental factors, dismissing any genetic contribution.
	33
12.1	34	## Relevant Studies##
10.1	35
31.2	36	* [[Rushton2005>>attach:Main Categories.Science & Research.Research at a Glance.Studies\: IQ.WebHome@rushton2005 OCR.pdf]]
10.1	37
	38	Rebuttal:
	39
	40	* While environmental factors (e.g., nutrition, education) influence IQ, genetic factors also play a significant role in group differences.
	41	* The Flynn Effect demonstrates rising IQs over time due to environmental improvements, but it does not negate underlying genetic differences.
	42	* Studies consistently show both genetic and environmental contributions to IQ, and ignoring one oversimplifies the issue.
	43
22.2	44	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.
10.1	45
22.3	46
16.1	47	{{/expandable}}
10.1	48
16.1	49	{{expandable summary="Culture is what matters not race"}}
10.1	50	Claim: Shared ancestry among Europeans is irrelevant to their cultural unity.
	51
	52	Rebuttal:
	53
	54	* Shared ancestry provides a foundation for common values, language development, and traditions.
	55	* Historical cooperation among European groups shows the importance of shared ancestry in forming alliances and cultural bonds.
	56	* Genetic studies reveal that Europeans share significant ancestry, reinforcing their cultural cohesion.
	57
	58	Explanation:
	59
	60	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.
16.1	61	{{/expandable}}
	62
28.1	63	{{expandable summary="You just hate people who don't look like you."}}
31.2	64	Claim: Advocacy for Whites is rooted in hatred toward other races.
24.1	65
	66	Rebuttal:
	67
31.2	68	* If hatred were the goal, it would involve destroying other races, not defending one’s own.
	69	* It is White people being targeted with demographic flooding, not others.
	70	* Preservation of one’s group is not equivalent to hate for others.
	71
24.1	72	Explanation:
34.1	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.
24.1	74	{{/expandable}}
	75
	76	{{expandable summary="No one's forcing assimilation."}}
31.2	77	Claim: Intermixing happens voluntarily, not by force.
24.1	78
	79	Rebuttal:
	80
31.2	81	* White communities are denied the freedom to remain White-only.
	82	* Legal, cultural, and economic pressure enforces forced integration.
	83	* UN law defines genocide as including coerced conditions of destruction.
	84
24.1	85	Explanation:
	86	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.
	87	{{/expandable}}
	88
	89	{{expandable summary="Have more babies."}}
31.2	90	Claim: Whites can solve the problem of replacement by reproducing more.
24.1	91
	92	Rebuttal:
	93
31.2	94	* Telling one group to “breed or die” while enforcing policies that erase them is genocidal.
	95	* Declining fertility does not justify importing tens of millions of non-Whites.
	96	* The argument itself admits that genocidal conditions are in place.
	97
24.1	98	Explanation:
34.2	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.
24.1	100	{{/expandable}}
	101
	102	{{expandable summary="America is a nation of immigrants."}}
31.2	103	Claim: America is uniquely a “nation of immigrants,” so mass migration today is natural.
24.1	104
	105	Rebuttal:
	106
31.2	107	* Every nation has ancestors who came from elsewhere. That does not erase national identity.
	108	* Immigration is not unique to America and does not justify replacement of the founding stock.
	109	* The phrase is used selectively to push anti-White policies.
	110
24.1	111	Explanation:
	112	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.
	113	{{/expandable}}
	114
	115	{{expandable summary="Stop trying to divide us."}}
31.2	116	Claim: Talking about race is what creates division.
24.1	117
	118	Rebuttal:
	119
31.2	120	* Multiracial societies are inherently divided along racial lines.
	121	* Those who flood White countries with mass immigration are responsible for division.
	122	* The more diversity, the more racial politics dominates.
	123
24.1	124	Explanation:
	125	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.
	126	{{/expandable}}
	127
	128	{{expandable summary="Identity politics is the problem."}}
31.2	129	Claim: Political conflict comes from identity politics, not immigration.
24.1	130
	131	Rebuttal:
	132
31.2	133	* All politics in multiracial countries becomes identity politics.
	134	* Non-Whites are loyal to their groups; only Whites are told not to be.
	135	* Diversity is what drives identity politics.
	136
24.1	137	Explanation:
	138	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.
	139	{{/expandable}}
	140
	141	{{expandable summary="Hate speech is not free speech."}}
31.2	142	Claim: Restricting “hate speech” protects society.
24.1	143
	144	Rebuttal:
	145
31.2	146	* Every tyranny justifies censorship by labeling dissent as dangerous.
	147	* The current anti-White system censors truth under the guise of “hate.”
	148	* Free speech protections were meant for unpopular opinions, not state-approved ones.
	149
24.1	150	Explanation:
	151	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.
	152	{{/expandable}}
	153
	154	{{expandable summary="One brown person down the street isn't genocide."}}
31.2	155	Claim: Genocide is exaggerated because a single non-White doesn’t constitute a threat.
24.1	156
	157	Rebuttal:
	158
31.2	159	* No one argues that one person equals genocide.
	160	* The issue is mass immigration plus forced assimilation in every White country.
	161	* Strawman arguments are used to distract from the real claim.
	162
24.1	163	Explanation:
	164	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.
	165	{{/expandable}}
	166
	167	{{expandable summary="Genocide means killing. Whites aren't being killed."}}
31.2	168	Claim: Genocide only applies to physical mass killings.
24.1	169
	170	Rebuttal:
	171
31.2	172	* UN law defines genocide to include deliberate conditions of destruction, not just killing.
	173	* Forced assimilation and mass immigration fall under this definition.
	174	* Historical precedent (Raphael Lemkin’s definition) explicitly included non-lethal methods.
	175
24.1	176	Explanation:
35.1	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//
24.1	181	{{/expandable}}
	182
29.1	183	{{expandable summary="No one's chasing you down."}}
31.2	184	Claim: Whites can still live separately if they choose.
24.1	185
29.1	186	Rebuttal:
	187
31.2	188	* Any attempt by Whites to form their own communities is targeted and dismantled.
	189	* Segregation laws and “anti-discrimination” policies prevent White-only spaces.
	190	* Whites uniquely are not allowed to escape enforced diversity.
	191
29.1	192	Explanation:
	193	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.
	194	{{/expandable}}
	195
	196	{{expandable summary="We all came from a common ancestor."}}
31.2	197	Claim: Since all humans share a common ancestor, race is irrelevant.
29.1	198
	199	Rebuttal:
	200
31.2	201	* Shared origins do not justify present-day eradication.
	202	* By this logic, any genocide could be excused by tracing ancestry back far enough.
	203	* Distinctions between groups are real and present, regardless of ultimate origin.
	204
29.1	205	Explanation:
	206	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.
	207	{{/expandable}}
	208
	209	{{expandable summary="You're inbred."}}
31.2	210	Claim: Whites are genetically damaged due to inbreeding.
29.1	211
	212	Rebuttal:
	213
31.2	214	* Every subspecies, breed, and race arises from mutations and selective in-group reproduction.
	215	* Inbreeding accusations are never used as a justification for eliminating other groups.
	216	* Whites number in the hundreds of millions — the idea they are “inbred” is absurd.
	217
29.1	218	Explanation:
	219	“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.
	220	{{/expandable}}
	221
	222	{{expandable summary="You can't control who people love."}}
31.2	223	Claim: Intermarriage is only about free choice and love.
29.1	224
	225	Rebuttal:
	226
31.2	227	* Mass immigration plus forced assimilation ensures intermarriage happens under engineered conditions.
	228	* Love is not an argument for demographic replacement programs.
	229	* Claiming “love” as justification ignores the coercive context of White erasure.
	230
29.1	231	Explanation:
	232	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.
	233	{{/expandable}}
	234
	235	{{expandable summary="I can't be anti-White. I'm White."}}
31.2	236	Claim: Whites cannot be anti-White.
29.1	237
	238	Rebuttal:
	239
31.2	240	* Betrayal is possible within any group — traitors have existed in every nation.
	241	* Being White does not exempt one from enacting anti-White policies.
	242	* Many Whites are incentivized to oppose their own group through social and financial pressure.
	243
29.1	244	Explanation:
	245	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.
	246	{{/expandable}}
	247
	248	{{expandable summary="Go back to Europe."}}
31.2	249	Claim: Whites in America should return to Europe.
29.1	250
	251	Rebuttal:
	252
31.2	253	* Europe is also being flooded with non-Whites.
	254	* Every nation was founded by conquest — if Whites must “go back,” then all other groups must as well.
	255	* Telling Whites to leave their own creation is hypocrisy.
	256
29.1	257	Explanation:
31.2	258	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.
29.1	259	{{/expandable}}
	260
	261	{{expandable summary="America was founded on the proposition that all men are created equal."}}
31.2	262	Claim: America’s founding documents establish universal equality.
29.1	263
	264	Rebuttal:
	265
31.2	266	* The Declaration of Independence was wartime propaganda aimed at Europe.
	267	* The U.S. Constitution — the actual founding law — makes no mention of equality.
	268	* The stated purpose of America is securing liberty for “ourselves and our posterity.”
	269
29.1	270	Explanation:
	271	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.
	272	{{/expandable}}
	273
	274	{{expandable summary="It's our values that matter."}}
31.2	275	Claim: Shared values, not shared ancestry, define civilization.
29.1	276
	277	Rebuttal:
	278
31.2	279	* Values arise from the genetic and cultural foundations of a people.
	280	* Remove the people, and the values eventually collapse.
	281	* No people can outsource their civilization without destroying it.
	282
29.1	283	Explanation:
	284	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.
	285	{{/expandable}}
	286
	287	{{expandable summary="It's 2018! The White population is growing so there can't be a White genocide."}}
31.2	288	Claim: Whites are not disappearing, so genocide claims are exaggerated.
29.1	289
	290	Rebuttal:
	291
31.2	292	* Anti-Whites admit they push immigration because Whites “aren’t having enough children.”
	293	* Genocide is defined by the attempt, not just the final outcome.
	294	* Attempted genocide is still genocide under UN law.
	295
29.1	296	Explanation:
	297	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.
	298	{{/expandable}}
	299
	300	{{expandable summary="We know what your kind of talk led to in the 30's."}}
31.2	301	Claim: Discussing White survival inevitably leads to another Holocaust.
29.1	302
	303	Rebuttal:
	304
31.2	305	* No historical event justifies genocide against Whites today.
	306	* If past atrocities justified elimination, then Turks, Japanese, and countless others would also be targeted.
	307	* The argument is selective and hypocritical.
	308
29.1	309	Explanation:
	310	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.
	311	{{/expandable}}
	312
30.1	313	{{expandable summary="I'm not anti-White. I'm pro-humanity."}}
31.2	314	Claim: Advocating for humanity as a whole cannot be anti-White.
30.1	315
	316	Rebuttal:
	317
31.2	318	* “Humanity” is an abstraction; real loyalty is to concrete groups.
	319	* Supporting policies that eliminate Whites while claiming to be “pro-humanity” is hypocrisy.
	320	* Other groups are never told loyalty to their own people is anti-human.
	321
30.1	322	Explanation:
	323	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.
	324	{{/expandable}}
	325
	326	{{expandable summary="It's a demographic shift."}}
31.2	327	Claim: White replacement is just a natural demographic change.
30.1	328
	329	Rebuttal:
	330
31.2	331	* Deliberate government policy is driving this shift, not random chance.
	332	* Calling genocide a “shift” is a rhetorical trick to normalize it.
	333	* No one describes other genocides as mere “demographics.”
	334
30.1	335	Explanation:
	336	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.
	337	{{/expandable}}
	338
	339	{{expandable summary="They just need to assimilate."}}
31.2	340	Claim: Non-Whites can simply assimilate into White societies.
30.1	341
	342	Rebuttal:
	343
31.2	344	* Assimilation is often code for intermarriage, which eliminates Whites genetically.
	345	* “Acting White” is not the same as being White.
	346	* Large numbers of non-Whites inevitably bring their own group identities and behaviors.
	347
30.1	348	Explanation:
	349	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.
	350	{{/expandable}}
	351
	352	{{expandable summary="The brown future is inevitable."}}
31.2	353	Claim: White replacement is unavoidable, so resistance is pointless.
30.1	354
	355	Rebuttal:
	356
31.2	357	* Declaring inevitability is a psychological tactic to demoralize resistance.
	358	* History is full of “inevitable” predictions proven wrong (Communism, EU integration, etc.).
	359	* The claim admits openly that replacement is intentional.
	360
30.1	361	Explanation:
	362	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.
	363	{{/expandable}}
	364
	365	{{expandable summary="Diversity is our strength."}}
31.2	366	Claim: Diversity inherently strengthens societies.
30.1	367
	368	Rebuttal:
	369
31.2	370	* Diversity is only forced on White nations, never others.
	371	* Homogeneity produces the highest trust and cooperation levels.
	372	* Every example of diversity leads to fragmentation and conflict.
	373
30.1	374	Explanation:
	375	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.
	376	{{/expandable}}
	377
	378	{{expandable summary="Race is a social construct."}}
31.2	379	Claim: Race does not exist biologically, only socially.
30.1	380
	381	Rebuttal:
	382
31.2	383	* Genetics show clear, measurable differences between groups.
	384	* If race did not exist, accusations against Whites for slavery or colonialism would be meaningless.
	385	* Anti-Whites contradict themselves by saying race is fake but Whites are uniquely guilty.
	386
30.1	387	Explanation:
	388	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.
	389	{{/expandable}}
	390
	391	{{expandable summary="We all came from Africa."}}
31.2	392	Claim: Common African origins make racial distinctions meaningless.
30.1	393
	394	Rebuttal:
	395
31.2	396	* Shared distant origins do not erase present distinctions.
	397	* This logic could excuse any genocide by saying “we’re all from the same place.”
	398	* Differences that matter now remain, regardless of ancient history.
	399
30.1	400	Explanation:
	401	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.
	402	{{/expandable}}
	403
	404	{{expandable summary="Immigration is good for the economy."}}
31.2	405	Claim: Immigration benefits the economy, so it must be positive.
30.1	406
	407	Rebuttal:
	408
31.2	409	* Economic benefit does not justify genocide.
	410	* If immigration were so beneficial, non-White countries would be wealthy.
	411	* Long-term costs (crime, welfare, division) outweigh temporary gains.
	412
30.1	413	Explanation:
	414	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.
	415	{{/expandable}}
	416
	417	{{expandable summary="You're just a Nazi fascist racist bigot supremacist."}}
31.2	418	Claim: Anyone defending Whites is simply hateful and extremist.
30.1	419
	420	Rebuttal:
	421
31.2	422	* These are slurs used to silence dissent.
	423	* None of these labels address the actual argument.
	424	* Name-calling replaces debate when anti-Whites have no evidence.
	425
30.1	426	Explanation:
	427	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.
	428	{{/expandable}}
	429
	430	{{expandable summary="You invaded America and Australia, now you complain about invasion?"}}
31.2	431	Claim: Whites cannot oppose immigration because they colonized in the past.
30.1	432
	433	Rebuttal:
	434
31.2	435	* Every race has conquered land — not just Whites.
	436	* Past conquest does not justify genocide today.
	437	* By this logic, every people should be destroyed, which is absurd.
	438
30.1	439	Explanation:
	440	“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.
	441	{{/expandable}}
	442
31.1	443	{{expandable summary="Would Christ turn away sufferers?"}}
31.3	444	Claim: It's not Chrtistianlike to prioritize race
31.1	445	Rebuttal:
31.2	446
31.1	447	* Aren't Jews Gods chosen people? Didn't he give them Israel?
	448	* If these people are suffering and they are hardworking decent people, wouldn't it cause more suffering to take them away from the countries that need help the most?
	449
	450	Explanation:
	451	God himself separated the races at the Tower of Babel and clearly designed us with different features. So not only does it do more harm than good by allowing ourselves to be demographically swamped and die out, it accomplishes nothing. Non white nations will be worse off with us gone, not better off.
	452	{{/expandable}}
	453
	454	{{expandable summary="White privilege is unfair."}}
	455	Claim: Whites deserve whats happening because of their privilege.
	456	Rebuttal:
31.2	457
	458	* This isn't even true, whites are the most attacked group in America and aren't allowed any advocacies.
	459	* Even if it were true, it wouldn't justify us dying out
	460	* If this was true, it would only apply to White countries. Do you think asians dont have Asian privilege in Asian countries?
	461
31.1	462	Explanation:
	463	If whites have privilege it doesn’t justify white genocide.
	464	{{/expandable}}
	465
	466	{{expandable summary="We can't alienate potential non-white voters."}}
31.2	467	Claim: We must avoid alienating potential non-white voters.
	468	Rebuttal:
31.1	469
31.8	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.
31.1	475	{{/expandable}}
	476
	477	{{expandable summary="Whites stole America."}}
31.3	478	Claim: Whites stole America.
	479	Rebuttal:
31.1	480
31.3	481	* All peoples have conquered land; conquest is universal in history.
	482	* Native tribes themselves displaced, fought, and exterminated one another long before Europeans arrived.
31.1	483
	484	Calling White conquest “theft” implies illegitimacy, but never applies that label to non-Whites doing the same.
	485	Explanation: If conquest voids legitimacy, then no nation or people can claim land. Singling out Whites is hypocrisy.
	486	{{/expandable}}
	487
	488	{{expandable summary="Contradictory anti-White logic on land and borders."}}
31.3	489	Claim: Whites stole land, yet borders don’t exist.
	490	Rebuttal:
31.1	491
31.3	492	* If land ownership is illegitimate, then no one can accuse Whites of stealing.
	493	* If land can be stolen, then borders and ownership clearly exist, making conquest legitimate.
31.8	494	* Anti-White rhetoric contradicts itself depending on which argument is convenient.
31.1	495
31.8	496	Explanation:
	497	This reveals the agenda: delegitimizing White presence regardless of logic. It is not a principled stance, but a targeted attack.
31.1	498	{{/expandable}}
	499
	500	{{expandable summary="Conquest is universal, Whites have equal right."}}
31.3	501	Claim: Whites conquered America, making it illegitimate.
	502	Rebuttal:
31.1	503
31.7	504	* Conquest is how nearly all nations formed, across all races.
	505	* Whites are singled out while non-White conquests (Turks in Constantinople, Bantus in southern Africa) are ignored.
	506	* If conquest is universal, Whites’ claim is as legitimate as anyone else’s.
31.1	507
31.8	508	Explanation:
	509	History cannot be selectively weaponized only against Whites.
31.1	510	{{/expandable}}
	511
	512	{{expandable summary="Saying Whites stole America admits it is White."}}
31.4	513	Claim: Whites stole America.
	514	Rebuttal:
31.1	515
31.4	516	* If Whites stole it, then it is by definition a White country now.
	517	* Diversity did not “steal” America; conquest and settlement did.
31.1	518
31.6	519	Explanation:
31.1	520	The rhetoric inadvertently admits the truth of ownership and establishment.
	521	Explanation: To claim theft is to admit transfer of possession. By their own words, America is a White nation.
	522	{{/expandable}}
	523
	524	{{expandable summary="If America was stolen, leave it."}}
31.4	525	Claim: America was stolen from Indians.
	526	Rebuttal:
31.1	527
31.4	528	* If occupation is illegitimate, the moral solution is to vacate stolen land.
	529	* Those who denounce Whites while living here prove they do not believe their own claim.
31.9	530	* Consistency would demand that anti-White activists leave America entirely.
31.1	531
31.6	532	Explanation:
32.1	533	Explanation: Hypocrisy shows their aim is not justice but targeting Whites.
31.1	534	{{/expandable}}
	535
	536	{{expandable summary="Welfare argument is irrelevant."}}
31.4	537	Claim: Most people on welfare are White.
	538	Rebuttal:
31.1	539
31.4	540	* Welfare statistics do not justify demographic replacement.
	541	* Whites paying into the system far exceed non-Whites, meaning redistribution favors others.
32.1	542	* Poverty does not make a people disposable.
31.1	543
32.1	544	Explanation:
	545	Welfare arguments are red herrings; they distract from the core issue of survival.
31.1	546	{{/expandable}}
	547
	548	{{expandable summary="Whites have no culture."}}
31.4	549	Claim: Whites have no culture.
	550	Rebuttal:
31.1	551
31.4	552	* Western civilization is one of the richest cultural traditions in history.
	553	* Claiming a people “doesn’t exist” is a known genocidal tactic.
32.1	554	* Denying identity is a step toward justifying elimination.
31.1	555
31.6	556	Explanation:
31.1	557	Explanation: Delegitimizing culture is psychological warfare. It is proof of genocidal intent.
	558	{{/expandable}}
	559
	560	{{expandable summary="Globalists vs White genocide."}}
31.4	561	Claim: Globalists are the real enemy, focus on them.
	562	Rebuttal:
31.1	563
31.4	564	* Globalists are dangerous, but they target Whites specifically for elimination.
	565	* White nations must first secure survival before joining broader struggles.
32.1	566	* Concern trolling about “globalists” is used to divert attention from White genocide
31.1	567
31.6	568	Explanation:
31.1	569	Explanation: Global battles cannot be fought if Whites are erased. Survival comes before coalition.
	570	{{/expandable}}
	571
	572	{{expandable summary="Europe is the White homeland."}}
31.4	573	Claim: Whites must go back to Europe.
	574	Rebuttal:
31.1	575
31.6	576	* By that logic, all non-Whites should leave Europe.
	577	* Should Turks leave Constantinople? Should Bantus vacate southern Africa? Should tribes vacate lands they conquered?
	578	* Conquest and migration are universal; only Whites are told to leave.
	579	* Explanation: The “go back” demand is not about fairness, but about dispossessing Whites uniquely. Do you think all non-whites should leave Europe?
31.1	580
31.6	581	Explanation:
31.5	582	Do you think all non-Siberians should leave America?
	583	All races have conquered land. Whites have as much right to land they conquered as every other race. Should Turks give Constantinople back to the white people they stole it from? Should Congoids give back the land they stole from Capoids in southern Africa? Should Ojibwe give back land they stole from Lakota?
31.1	584	{{/expandable}}