Is White Genocide a “Myth”? By Richard Miller
The Affirmative Right web site, not to be confused with affirmative action, publishes some great material, and some not so great, and some deserving solid critique. The article discussed here, maintains that Whites are largely responsible for their plight, and as hard as is to accept, some good points are made:
“The truth is that white men are primarily responsible for the destruction of the West. White men liberated women from their traditional role as housewife and mother. Nowadays, women are encouraged to spend their prime reproductive years getting an education and pursuing a career. The consequences of this unrestrained female hypergamy are a lower white fertility rate and the destruction of the traditional monogamous family unit. In 1919, the US Congress ratified the 19th Amendment, giving females the right to vote. Concerning this regressive legislation, academics write:
“Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise” (Lott and Kenny, 1999). Whites ensured passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, ending racial segregation in the southern states. If it wasn’t for the civil rights movement, blacks would have remained segregated and the black-on-white crime rate would be insignificant. The 1965 Immigration Act, which inaugurated America’s demographic transformation, only became law because of white power and influence. The US is now on a direct path to becoming a North American version of Brazil by the middle of the 21st century. If not for whites, there wouldn’t be a feminist or a civil rights movement … white problems are caused by millions of gullible … white voters and their globalist elites.
Some, especially in the Alt-Right as it now exists, believe the Western democracies are somehow preventing the white majority from organizing en masse to resist their own racial “displacement,” but this is a laughable excuse. Firstly, given the demographic emergency, why are white nationalists still such a very small percentage of the population of North America and Western Europe? That few whites actively sympathize with white nationalist causes is empirically supported by numerous surveys and questionnaires. For example, in the US, the Institute of Government and Public Affairs has published data showing that white majority opposition to school integration and interracial marriage, once common during the 1940s and 1950s, has largely evaporated. An ANES survey (2016) reports that only 6 percent of white respondents expressed support for white identity politics.
Secondly, if whites were as naturally pro-white as some people claim they are, they would have long ago voted white activists into office to put an end to the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. We would have been treated to an unbroken succession of white nationalist governments. There would have been a President David Duke and a Prime Minister Nick Griffin. Instead, whites show their disdain for pro-white advocacy by voting for the same neoliberal globalist parties ad nauseam. Pierre Trudeau, the architect of the modern liberal police state in Canada, was voted into office four times, despite allowing non-whites to enter the country and become “new Canadians” during his first term as prime minister.”
That is correct, whatever area you care to look, the general apathy, ignorance, cowardice and suicidal nature of “we, the people” can be seen. Thus, 90 percent of the English believe that having a white ethnic link to the country, even though this link of blood goes back thousands of years, is not necessary to be English, especially if one is football star.
“The conclusion that follows is… “White nationalists believe that non-white immigration is “white genocide,” but is this an accurate perception of reality? What would we be seeing if demographic genocide was really occurring in Western countries? What do we see in Tibet and Xinjiang, where there is indisputable evidence of demographic genocide? We see a long record of wars, rebellions, terrorist attacks, and widespread civil unrest in response to state-enforced migratory policies, which continue despite the overwhelming numerical and military superiority of the Chinese occupation.”
When it comes to whites, we see no resistance of any kind. Whites neither wage wars, rebel, or commit terrorist acts against their supposedly “oppressive” Western governments, even though they have both the numbers and technical ability to do so if they wanted to. Why the inertia? The answer is that whites want to be demographically replaced; they do not want to be saved, least of all by other, more level-headed whites. The demographic transformation of the West is occurring because of mass democracy, not because of the “soft” totalitarian policies of the globalist elite. These are a consequence, not a cause, of the demographic transformation of the West. Notwithstanding Bob Whitaker’s online mantra, “white genocide” is a myth. By calling white race replacement “genocide,” we trivialize the enormity of this crime for cheap rhetorical purposes. Not only is non-white immigration not “white genocide,” it isn’t “invasion” either, since non-whites have been invited by whites to settle in white countries. Neither are whites being ethnically cleansed or “dispossessed” of their own nations, since they are freely giving away everything they have received from their ancestors, often with smiles on their faces. In this case, non-white replacement migration is more accurately described as collective white racial suicide, which is not the same thing as genocide, invasion, and ethnic cleansing.…
There will be no collective white racial awakening. The diversity madness will not end until the West is utterly destroyed. As it now stands, a solution to this pitiable state of affairs remains an elusive one. Peaceful dissemination of race realist and white nationalist ideas seldom accomplishes anything. Whites, many of whom are already familiar with the biological reality of race and sex, will continue to uphold the neoliberal order, regardless of what the latest science says (just like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan did).”
Thus, what we are seeing is white racial suicide, aided of course by the powerful elites. The ordinary people are the fuel, and the elites the spark, that burns down the West. But, all the author can say in conclusion as a response to all of this manure, is that there needs to be separation from the mainstream, but does not detail how this would be done, and what the point is. One way that has been suggested, is accelerationism, the idea that the decline, and collapse of the present system may awaken our people, and kick into being a survival mechanism, like the hypnotic power being turned off. Greg Johnson rejects this position of accelerationism:
“No, actually we lose by losing. When we lose, we can of course hope that somehow the gods or “history” will turn our defeats into conditions for future victories. But in the end, we can only win by winning.”
That is all well and good, but the issue is that things may be so far gone, so contaminated, the field so overgrown with metaphorical choking toxic weeds, that it is no longer possible to try and save things, or clear the land, problem by problem. Systems collapse, falling apart from its own internal rottenness, may be the final hope. It will destroy the tyranny and give us the opportunity to rebuild, or at least die out with dignity.