Robert Whitaker mantra: “Diversity is a code word for white genocide.”
Rachel Maddow mantra: “Diversity is a good thing.”
Something unprecedented is happening that will drastically change the course of the future. To appreciate it, imagine the last 3,000 years of human history without the European peoples, without the branch of humanity that for most of that time, and especially in the last 700 years, has been the primary source of human achievement and progress and the creator of the modern world, and then project that history into the future and imagine how the course of human existence will be changed if Europeans are removed from it. That is what is happening. The White or European peoples are being removed from the future by a process that will be referred to here as the “White Replacement and Destruction Movement,” abbreviated as WRDM. If this movement runs its course the White race will have no future, and the future will be without the White race. This removal by replacement and destruction of the most dynamic, creative and advanced major branch of humanity is a development on a scale unparalleled in human existence, yet it is never discussed, acknowledged or recognized, and the great majority of humanity, including the European or White peoples themselves, seem to be totally unaware of it, lacking all knowledge of it, to the extent that if someone informs them of it they do not believe it, and react with total incredulity.
The Wall of Obfuscation
The tactics and techniques used to maintain this general state of ignorance, while advancing the WRDM agenda, include obfuscation, dissimulation, evasion, misrepresentation, misdirection, distortion, deflection (changing the subject), deception, denial, euphemisms, minimization, falsification, misinformation, disinformation, suppression of knowledge or information (e.g., on racial demographics and statistics), suppression of contrary opinion, and censorship. The success of these tactics depends on near total dominance in the media, education, academic, corporate and political establishments enabling an extensive campaign that operates on different levels as required, from softer (e.g., the tactics listed above) to harder forms (e.g., persecution, retaliation, penalization and criminalization). For convenience, all of the above “softer” forms and techniques to suppress knowledge of the truth and reality with the deceptive purpose of causing and maintaining ignorance and misunderstanding will here be grouped together as forms of obfuscation.
Why this obfuscation? Simply put, to suppress White dissent and resistance to their dispossession, replacement and destruction by keeping them ignorant of it. This campaign of obfuscation and censorship has been highly successful in suppressing White awareness of their ongoing replacement and destruction, to the extent that its causes — e.g., multiracialism, non-White immigration and racial intermixture — enjoy general White support, or at least passive acquiescence. Kevin MacDonald has cited studies that show when Whites are informed of demographic changes that are reducing them to a minority they become angry and more resistant to these changes:
Because the media is dominated by the left and because even the conservative media is terrified of appearing to advocate White interests, explicit messages that would encourage Whites to become angry and fearful about their future as a minority are rare. Indeed, the media rarely, if ever, mentions that Whites are well on their way to becoming a minority. And this for good reason: Whites in the United States and in Canada who are given explicit demographic projections of a time when Whites are no longer a majority tend to feel angry and fearful. They are also more likely to identify as Whites and have sympathy for other Whites. In other words, explicit messages indicating that one’s racial group is threatened are able to trigger ethnocentrism.
The most basic interests of the “White” (i.e., European) racial group are its continued existence and control of its existence, i.e., its life, freedom and independence. It follows that being pro-White most basically means being for (or pro) the continued life and existence of the White race and for its independence or control of its own existence. It further follows that being anti-White most basically means being against (or anti) the continued existence and life of the White race and against its racial freedom and control of its own existence. The reverse of the above is also true, in that being pro-White also means being against or opposing that which causes (or is causing) the destruction of the White race and the loss of its racial freedom and independence, while being anti-White also means being for the causes of White racial destruction and subjugation. This permits an objective definition of the “Anti-White Coalition” (abbreviated as AWC) as the grouping, whether formal or informal, of those elements which promote the dispossession and replacement, subjugation and destruction, of the White or European racial group, or which support and promote the causes of White racial dispossession, replacement, subjugation and destruction, the chief among which being the racially destructive trio of multiracialism, non-White immigration and racial intermixture.
The early stages of the WRDM can be traced back at least to the interwar beginnings of the Frankfurt School of sociology, the New School of Social Research, and the Franz Boas school of cultural anthropology, by the 1930s all based at Columbia University, and the initial rise of the AWC to a dominant position in the media and culture during the same period. Though few realized it at the time, or even now over 70 years later, the WRDM gained such momentum in the aftermath of the Second World War that it became institutionalized as the ruling power structure without effective opposition. This was accomplished by two means. First, by the consolidation of the AWC’s control of the media, academic, political and cultural establishments and the formation of the United Nations, whose founding documents promoted a “one-world, one-race” globalist New World Order. Second, by the purging of nationalist elements from positions of cultural and political influence in Europe (10,000-60,000 were executed in France) and the general discrediting and delegitimization (or even demonization) of the racial and national interests of White populations, including White racial protectionism and preservationism, which were equated with the recently defeated National Socialist regime in Germany. The 1950 UNESCO “Statement on Race,” with Boasian anthropologist “Ashley Montagu” (Israel Ehrenberg) as rapporteur, declared the new racial nihilist creed that race and racial differences are nihil, literally nothing, non-existent and meaningless, of no importance or value, and therefore not a legitimate matter for concern, consideration, protection or preservation. It was. and is, the perfect creed for opposing the continued existence of the White race, as it denies its very existence. It follows that from its inception the United Nations had been a strong promoter, and increasingly an enforcer, of multiracialism and invasion levels of non-White immigration into White countries.
The postwar period has seen a growing lexicon of weaponized words used by the AWC to promote the WRDM and silence or marginalize its opponents, starting with the noun “racism” and the adjective “racist,” which first gained currency in leftist circles in the 1930s. The use of these two words has continuously expanded to the extent that they are now used as descriptors for a wide variety of beliefs and positions at various levels from the micro to the macro. Concerning the point of this discussion, they are commonly applied to any form or degree of White support for the preservation (continued existence) and independence (control of its own existence) of their race, or opposition to the WRDM agenda of multiracialism, non-White immigration and racial intermixture. As a tactic to portray them as purely negative, as being against or anti the interests of non-White races (e.g., their occupation of White countries) rather than for or pro the existential interests of the White race (e.g., continued existence and control of its own existence in its own countries), the AWC has increasingly conflated and confused racism with hatred of other races, and so defined it as “hate,” although love for one’s race would be the more natural and normal motive to protect and preserve it and want it to be free. Also, any support for White interests or opposition to the WRDM agenda is not just defined as racism, but also as “white supremacism,” following Marxist theory wherein “ethnocentrism [e.g., racism] is a tactic employed by one group in order to gain power over, and exploit, another group.” Consistent with Marxist doctrine, no other motive or definition is permitted. The prevalence with which the term “white supremacism” is used among modern ideologues and journalists indicates the continued influence of doctrinaire Marxist thinking.
Not all the weaponized words in the AWC lexicon are negative, only those that describe pro-White ideas, values, policies and advocacy. Those that describe anti-White positions and values are portrayed as positive, usually in the form of obfuscatory euphemisms. For example, “diversity” and “inclusiveness” are used as euphemisms for multiracialism, the destroyer of races, so the common racial nihilist mantra that “diversity is our strength” really says that “multiracialism, the cause of White racial destruction, is our strength.” Tolerance (as used by the AWC) means acceptance of the causes (i.e., multiracialism, non-White immigration and racial intermixture) of White dispossession, replacement and destruction, combined with intolerance of opposition to those causes or advocacy for White racial interests (i.e., White existence and independence).
The Anti-White Racial Revolution
Spiro Agnew, vice-president under Richard Nixon, was, before Donald Trump, the politician most noted for his biting criticism of the “left-wing” media, and he and Nixon were the politicians most hated by that media. Perhaps his most memorable and mocked, although apt, phrase – seen on many bumper stickers – was “eschew obfuscation.” The discourse then, as now, was marked by obfuscation: using language as a tool to hide or distort reality, being evasive and unclear about facts and reasons, making issues confusing and unintelligible, with the deceptive purpose of causing and maintaining ignorance and misunderstanding.
The decade before this phrase was coined had seen a great deal of obfuscation on racial matters. The anti-White racial revolution that began in the 1960s, which included the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, was cloaked and obscured with multiple layers of dishonesty, deception and obfuscation to hide its true anti-White effects, so lessening White awareness and resistance, and providing plausible deniability to its supporters. The true effects were White racial dispossession, replacement and gradual destruction through mass non-White immigration and racial intermixture. But those effects were not recognized or acknowledged by the Anti-White Coalition (AWC) that had become the ruling power structure. Discussion of these effects was, with few exceptions, successfully evaded and suppressed as a forbidden subject, and in the exceptions strongly denied. Thus the agents of the AWC were able to explicitly promote the causes of White racial replacement and destruction, e.g., multiracialism, non-White immigration and racial intermixture, while the effects themselves, and the connections between the causes and the effects, were obfuscated and kept from mainstream recognition or consideration, with the purpose of keeping the White population as ignorant of them as possible, and so as submissive and unresisting as possible, for as long as possible. Unfortunately, in this purpose they have been generally successful. But as the rise of alternative media on the internet weakened their near monopoly on the flow of information and the effects of their policies have become ever more obvious – and difficult to hide or deny – in both the increase of the non-White population and the rate of intermixture; and as some anti-White activists have become more open and explicit in expressing their real feelings, intentions and goals; the smokescreen of obfuscation is becoming less effective in hiding the truth and their denials are becoming ever less plausible.
Yet persistent denials that multiracialism, massive non-White immigration and racial intermixture are causing, or even can or will cause, White racial replacement and destruction are still the norm in the mainstream culture. Claims to the contrary, however logically and sensibly explained, whatever facts, evidence, statistics and projections are marshalled as proof, or simply based on ordinary perception, are either ignored, disregarded as an improper (“politically incorrect”) subject of concern, denounced as racist agitation, or dismissed as a delusional fantasy promoted by an international (American, Canadian, Australian, British, French, German, Hungarian, etc.) conspiracy of White anti-multiracialists to provoke resistance to multiracialism/diversity and the agenda of the ruling class that promotes and enforces it. Across hundreds of Wikipedia pages a diligent researcher can amass statistics on multiple historically White countries providing overwhelming evidence to prove that those countries are being invaded by mass non-White immigration that is transforming or “browning” their populations from White to non-White, dispossessing and replacing the White populations, and subjecting them to a process of more or less gradual racial destruction. Yet one would search Wikipedia in vain for a page that describes this world-transforming, history changing, and future defining phenomenon whose effects will far exceed that of any other in recorded history. Instead one finds only a page describing this phenomenon as a “conspiracy theory,” with an opening stream of obfuscating anti-White invectives:
The white genocide conspiracy theory is a neo-Nazi, alt-right, white nationalist/supremacist conspiracy theory, which contends that any one of mass immigration, racial integration, miscegenation, low fertility rates, abortion, governmental land-confiscation from whites, organised violence or eliminationism are being promoted in either predominantly white countries, or supposedly white-founded countries, to deliberately replace, remove, or liquidate white populations, dismantle white collective power, turn the countries minority-white, and hence cause white people to become extinct through forced assimilation or violent genocide.
The Wikipedia page makes no attempt to refute or deny that the causes of White racial replacement and destruction/genocide (i.e., non-White immigration, multiracialism and racial intermixture), and essentially everything it describes, are happening, or that they are being openly promoted and enforced, and even celebrated by the ruling power structure as a great racial demographic transformation hailed as the “browning” of America and Europe. Nor does the page attempt to refute or deny the mass of proof, evidence, facts, etc., including official government statistics and projections (e.g., from the census bureau and CDC), showing the vast increase in the proportion of non-Whites in the populations of White countries, and their continued increase into the future with Whites becoming ever shrinking minorities, as well as comparable increases in the rates of racial intermixture and the proportions of persons of mixed race. It simply ignores and so avoids the central and determinative issue that White racial dispossession, replacement and destruction (i.e., the WRDM) is happening and obfuscates the matter by resorting to the ad hominem tactic of associating it with “neo-Nazi,” “white supremacist” conspiracy theorists to preclude discussion of the subject and dismiss it as unworthy of consideration. Yet if it is true, as all the facts and developments indicate, that “Europe is riddled with subversive elements in high positions determined to utterly destroy it…,” it is also true that the anti-White activities of the ruling power structure are so general and open that they lack the requisite level of secrecy to qualify as a conspiracy, but they have the requisite level of power and control to make secrecy unnecessary, with obfuscation and suppression of opposition proving adequate for the task.
One of my early, and pre-Agnew, encounters with anti-White obfuscation is among my vivid memories of the day JFK was assassinated. That night, while visiting a relative in the hospital, I picked up the November 18, 1963 issue of U.S. News & World Report and read the collection of essays titled “Intermarriage and the Race Problem – As Leading Authorities See It.” Among the “leading authorities” were Gunnar Myrdal, Ernest van den Haag and, at that time, on this subject, the “must go to” ubiquitous Margaret Mead, one of the iniquitous disciples of Franz Boas. Although only fourteen at the time, I was already alerted to the long term “globalist” agenda of “one-world and one-race” from reading H.G. Wells’ The Outline of History, particularly the passage – so ominous to a White person who wants their race to live – where the author describes mankind as now engaged in a revolution to undo Creation itself by reversing the course of the last 100,000 years of human evolution from divergence to reconvergence, a prognosis perhaps partly based on wishful thinking, but also widely seen as the ultimate purpose and goal of the United Nations.
The word obfuscation had not yet entered my lexicon, but I remember thinking that the essay authors were being misleading and deceptive in suggesting there were no legitimate reasons for concern about racial intermixture, or for opposing integration on those grounds, and in minimizing the effect integration would have on the rate of racial intermarriage, which at that time was a less vulgar way of referring to racial intermixture (miscegenation) in general. After all, one of the primary motives for racial segregation, including the laws against intermarriage, was to prevent, or at least reduce, racial intermixture. This was not only logical and intuitive, but simple common sense, and a powerful factor in White resistance to racial integration. Yet the gist of this collection of essays seemed to be that there was no reason to be concerned that racial integration and the other goals of the racial or “Civil Rights” revolution would cause any significant change in the racial status quo, including the rate of intermixture, with the obvious intended purpose of reducing White concerns and resistance. This soothing message was expressed in convoluted academic jargon, assertions and arguments that a few years later, thanks to Agnew, I would recognize as obfuscation.
Mead’s essay was titled “We’ve Got a Blending of Races Right Now,” an example of the common pro-race-mixing tactic of delegitimizing opposition to racial intermixture on the grounds that the races are already mixed, even if the supposed mixture is of an invisible type or degree only evident to an “expert,” and based on the false premise that there is no meaningful difference between various degrees of intermixture, meaning any degree of intermixture, however minimal, equates with total intermixture, that one percent mixture, or less, is the equivalent of fifty percent mixture, or more. Fortunately, this tactic, which depended so much on “expert” assertions with little or no credible evidence to support it, is finally being conclusively discredited by modern autosomal genetic studies, such as the 2014 study by Bryc, et. al., which shows the White American population to be far less racially mixed or “blended” than the supposed “authorities” disingenuously claimed, with the average proportion of European genetic ancestry among non-Hispanic European-Americans being 98.6 percent, and with 94 percent of European-Americans having no genetically measurable non-European ancestry. But increasing rates of racial intermarriage and intermixture, which the false claims and reassurances of these “experts” facilitated, are making their false claims, and probable wishful thinking, come true. In 1963, when Mead wrote that the races were already blended, the proportion of children born that year to White mothers who had non-White fathers was about 2 percent. By 2013, according to CDC figures, that proportion had increased to at least 11.8 percent, an approximate 600 percent increase in fifty years.
The passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (also known as the Hart-Celler Act), which began the invasion levels of non-White immigration that have racially transformed America, was also smoothed by obfuscation and deception regarding its true consequences. Per Wikipedia:
During debate on the Senate floor, Senator [Ted] Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said, “our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually…. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.”
The Act was supported in Congress by 74 percent of Democrats and 85 percent of Republicans, with most of the no votes coming from Southerners, still strongly Democratic, who had a far greater sense of, and resistance to, its anti-White racial consequences than their Northern colleagues. And they were right. As Wikipedia admits: “In removing racial and national barriers the Act would significantly alter the demographic mix in the U.S.”
“Significantly alter” is an understatement. The 1965 Act transformed the racial identity of the country, later boosted by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which amnestied three million illegals and the Immigration Act of 1990, also fronted by Ted Kennedy, which increased the rate of non-White immigration still further, together causing an explosion of the non-White population. In 1970 the non-White population was 31 million (15 percent of the total population of 203 million). By 1986 it had increased to 52 million (21.3 percent of the total population of 244 million). In the thirty years from 1986 to 2016, under the Immigration Act of 1990, the non-White population increased by another 80 million, from 52 million in 1986 to 132 million (41 percent of the total population of 323 million) in 2016. By 2013 over half of the births in the country were to non-White mothers, and at least 11.8 percent of the births to White mothers were with non-White fathers. Non-Whites are now projected to become a majority by 2042, but if the actual number of illegal immigrants is 23-30 million as indicated by a 2018 Yale-MIT study, instead of the semi-official figure of 11 million, that date, in the absence of mass deportations, could be moved up by a decade or more.
Diversity as a euphemism for the “Browning” of the White World
The anti-White revolutionary racial transformation of the country was justified by an accompanying and rationalizing revolutionary transformation of the national ideology, elevating “diversity,” which in practice meant racial diversity, to the highest national ideal and goal, an end in itself, the center of the national creed, the source of our strength, and the essence and meaning of our national purpose and destiny. But the real meaning, purpose and consequences of this diversity were obfuscated, as diversity itself was a term of obfuscation. It was clearly a euphemism for multiracialism, but its end-game or ideal state, where it was leading, where it would end up, was never discussed.
In his review of Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics Are Remaking America, by William H. Frey (2014), titled “The Browning of America,” Christopher Caldwell begins by addressing the mantra “Diversity is our strength/makes us stronger”:
Until half a century ago most serious historians would have called such an opinion ignorant or naïve. …Such, at least, is the traditional view, and history appears to vindicate it…. Yet “diversity” today is a sacred term…. While [Frey] never defines the word explicitly, he means the decline—in both population and vitality—of America’s European-descended population, and its replacement by more recently arrived population groups from everywhere in the non-European world. Frey sometimes describes this change as “the browning of America.”
By his inference of what Frey means by diversity, Caldwell finally eschews the obfuscation and tells us explicitly what it means: the “browning of America,” or the transformation of America from a White to a non-White country. So finally, without the obfuscation, deception and evasion, the meme of diversity that the dominant Anti-White Coalition has elevated to the highest national value, ideal and goal, the center of the national creed, the source of our greatest strength, and the ultimate meaning of our national purpose and destiny, is revealed as a euphemism, or code-word, for the replacement and destruction of the White population. Caldwell also makes clear that this “browning of America” is being caused by more than just non-White immigration, that another cause is racial intermixture, the actual browning of the White population itself, the accelerating cause of not just White racial replacement, but of actual White racial destruction, as: “A sixth of newly married whites are married to someone of another race…. [and] white-black marriages have been rising since the 1960s, by about 50% per decade.”
Now we know what “diversity” really means, what it has always meant to its proponents and those who have elevated it above the vision and values of the Founding Fathers. It means, and always meant, the “browning” of America, the transformation of America from a White country to a brown country, the replacement of White America by a brown America, by the dispossession, replacement and eventual destruction of its White population. The main driver of this anti-White process has been non-White immigration. The greater the rate of non-White immigration the faster the transformation from a White to a brown country. That is why the proponents of diversity and the “browning of America” favor the maximum amount of non-White immigration, whether legal or illegal, to bring about the fall, and seal the fate, of White America as fast as possible. And that is the real reason they are against anything that reduces, slows, obstructs, opposes or stands in the way of that transformation.
White interests and non-White interests are diametrically opposed and totally conflict. The non-White interest is in dispossessing and replacing Whites in their countries, so multiracialism/diversity and mass non-White immigration into White countries is in their interest. The White interest is in continued racial life/existence and control of their life/existence, i.e., racial liberty or independence, which requires their own country and government. Non-White immigration is an aggressive act of racial invasion, dispossession, replacement and destruction against the White race, and so totally against the most important of White interests: racial life and freedom.
The long war against racism is in actual practice a war against the White race: against its independence and freedom; its possession and ownership of its own countries; its power and control over its own existence; and ultimately against its very existence. According to the revolutionary anti-White ideology of anti-racism and diversity/multiracialism, racism will end only when the White race no longer exists, confirming Robert Whitaker’s mantras that “Anti-racism is a code word for anti-White” and “Diversity is a code word for White genocide.”
Riding the Tiger
The anti-White racial revolution is gaining momentum, is accelerating, with increasing rates of non-White immigration, racial intermixture, and increased displacement and replacement of Whites throughout the society and culture, even with the rewriting and falsification of history to include non-Whites and falsely portray historically all-White countries and societies as multiracial. This is now officially presented by the UN and EU as a never-ending process in which scores of millions of non-Whites will migrate to White countries during the remaining course of the century to submerge and drown the White race in an unending flood of non-White races.
As the momentum of the WRDM has accelerated there has been a semantic progression in levels of obfuscation versus explicitness as each succeeding terminology segues into the next, from “civil rights” to “diversity” to “browning” to destruction, with the real meaning of the progression becoming more explicit at each stage. We are now transitioning from the diversity stage to the browning stage. As NPR’s lead political editor explains: “The country is changing — it’s getting browner…. America is at a demographic inflection point. The crosscurrents of demographic and cultural change are upending traditional voting patterns and straining the fabric of what it means to be American.”
According to Vox editor-at-large and MSNBC contributor Ezra Klein, in a browning America Whites are the threat, i.e., the threat (resistance, opposition, etc.) to the browning of America. We are in a racial revolution in which non-Whites are overthrowing and replacing Whites, with the anti-White racial revolutionaries (previously mislabeled “liberals,” now mislabeled “progressives”) versus the pro-White counter-revolutionaries, reactionaries or “fascists” who oppose the anti-White racial revolution in which the White race will be dispossessed, replaced and destroyed. Whites, as the only natural opposition to the anti-White racial revolution, the “browning of America,” are seen as a “threat” to that revolution, the opposing counter-revolutionary element, as the aristocrat class was seen as a threat to the French Revolution and the bourgeoisie, “Whites,” kulaks, etc. were seen as a threat to the Bolshevik Communist Revolution. The Jacobin “Reign of Terror” against the aristocrats and other perceived “enemies of the revolution,” and the Soviet campaign of “dekulakization,” or “liquidation of the kulaks as a class,” could be seen as possible historical precedents and templates for the later stages of the anti-White racial revolution. Noel Ignatiev’s mantra “Abolish the White race” has long been a favorite anti-White meme. Its interpretation could easily shift from figurative to literal, as it already did in the earlier phase of the anti-White Racial Marxist radicalism from which Ignatiev emerged.
According to an old Chinese proverb, “He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount.” He cannot safely dismount as long as the tiger lives. The anti-White elements in high positions who have been riding the White race toward its death have gone too far for too long to dismount before reaching that destination. To live, the “tiger,” the White race, has to throw them off and free itself from their control. This would require a pro-White racial counter-revolution that will achieve the long overdue restoration of the natural racial order by annulling multiracialism, divorcing the incompatible races, and re-separating them into their own countries. Hopefully we will then have learned the correct and proper lessons of tolerance and intolerance: to never tolerate hostile riders again.
 Any expression of opposition to White replacement and destruction or its causes has long been strongly suppressed by various means, from restricting its publication to punitive actions against its authors. More recently any expression of support for White existence and independence, or consequent opposition to White replacement and destruction, has been labeled as “hate speech,” a Cultural Marxist concept used to justify its suppression, banning from social media and internet platforms, and criminalization as “hate crime” in many countries that do not enjoy the free speech protections of the First Amendment.
 Kevin MacDonald, “Psychological Mechanisms and White Interests, Part 2,” The Occidental Observer, April 29, 2019. https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/04/29/psychological-mechanisms-and-white-interests-part-2/
 For a more detailed description of the Anti-White Coalition see Richard McCulloch, “White Racial Interests and the Trump Candidacy,” The Occidental Quarterly 16, no. 2 (Summer 2016): 21-54. In brief, the AWC includes all those who oppose the fundamental White racial interests of continued existence and control of its own existence, which require that it have its own separate and independent countries and governments. It follows that it also includes all those who support White racial dispossession, replacement and destruction, or, less directly, support their causes, e.g., multiracialism, non-White immigration and racial intermixture. This includes essentially all non-Whites (i.e., non-Europeans) who are present in White countries as well as those Whites who support – however well or ill informed, knowing or unknowing – the WRDM and its causes.
 According to the Wikipedia page on racism (accessed June 14, 2019) “…there is not a wide agreement on a single definition of what racism is and what it is not. Today, some scholars of racism prefer to use the concept in the plural racisms, in order to emphasize its many different forms that do not easily fall under a single definition.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
 Andrew Joyce, “Review of Ed Dutton’s Race Differences in Ethnocentrism,” The Occidental Observer, May 23, 2019. https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/05/23/review-of-ed-duttons-race-differences-in-ethnocentrism/
 Michael Walker, “Confronting the Ethnomasochists on the High Seas: Alexander Schleyer’s Defend Europe,” Counter-Currents Publishing, June 25, 2019. https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/06/confronting-the-ethnomasochists-on-the-high-seas/#more-95844
 Katarzyna Bryc, Eric Y. Durand, et. al. (The Genetic Ancestry of African Americans, Latinos, and European Americans across the United States) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289685/ According to the Bryc study the European American population is genetically 98.6 percent European, 0.19 percent Sub-Saharan African (black), 0.18 percent Native American (Indian) and 1.03 percent various other non-European races. Compare this to the disingenuous agenda-advancing claims formerly made by so-called “experts” of a much higher proportion of black admixture in the White population. A typical example was Dr. Munro Edmonson, a professor of anthropology at Tulane University, who in 1982 testified at a trial as an expert witness that: “modern genetic studies show that blacks around the country average 25 percent white genes and Whites five percent black genes.” The Bryc study, per above, says the former figure is 24 percent, very similar to Edmonson’s, but the latter figure is 0.19 percent, which means Edmonson, while very accurate about the proportion of White genes in the black population, for some reason overstated the proportion of black mixture in the White population by 26 times, or 2,631 percent! Finally, thanks to modern genetic studies, the greatly exaggerated claims of White mixture, long a common fixture in the argument of the pro-mixture faction, has been conclusively discredited. Edmonson’s testimony is found in People Weekly, Dec. 6, 1982, page 156.
 Claremont Review of Books: Vol. XV, Number 1, Winter 2014-15.
 Domenico Montanaro, “How The Browning Of America Is Upending Both Political Parties,” NPR, October 12, 2016. https://www.npr.org/2016/10/12/497529936/how-the-browning-of-america-is-upending-both-political-parties
 Ezra Klein, “White Threat in a Browning America: How demographic change is fracturing our politics,” Vox, July 30, 2018. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17505406/trump-obama-race-politics-immigration
 The Weather Underground faction of the New Left circa 1969-72 was already seriously discussing liquidating 25 million Whites as well as killing all newborn White babies:
….they estimated that they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers. And when I say eliminate I mean kill – 25 million people. I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people most of which have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well known educational centers and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people and they were dead serious.
I remember going to the last above ground Weatherman convention [December 26-31, 1969 in Flint, Michigan], and sitting in a room and the question that was debated was, “Was it or was it not the duty of every good revolutionary to kill all newborn white babies.” At that point it seemed like a relevant framing of an issue, the logic being, “Hey look, through no fault of their own these white kids were going to grow up to be part of an oppressive racial establishment internationally, and so really your duty is to kill newborn white babies.” I remember one guy kind of tentatively and apologetically suggesting that that seemed like it may be contradictory to the larger humanitarian aims of the movement, and being kind of booed down.
Doug McAdam interview in “Picking Up the Pieces,” Part 5 of the PBS documentary series Making Sense of the Sixties, televised January 23, 1991. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZVbrvfAn_Q