Of late, much has been made in the alt-right press of the idea of “White genocide” as an existential threat posed by mainstream society, aimed at the obliteration of Whites in their formerly dominant homelands in Europe and North America. This movement—conceived and implemented by Jews and their leftist lackeys—is said to portend the virtual or literal end of the White race. It has no standard definition, and goes by various labels; a recent TOO piece by Richard McCulloch refers, for example, to the “White replacement and destruction movement” (WRDM). It has been expressed concisely (if ambiguously) by one writer who stated that, on this thesis, “the White race will have no future, and the future will be without the White race.” It sounds grim.
While it is true that White rule in many nations is under threat, I think it is premature—at least in the coming decades—to decry the physical elimination of Whites anywhere. Exaggeration and hyperbole do not serve White interests. We need to think a bit more carefully about ‘White genocide’, and indeed about the concept of genocide itself, lest we get lost in a storm of hype. Real threats to White interests risk getting subsumed by bogus—or at least exaggerated—dangers.
Let’s start with a look at the word ‘genocide’—a term with thoroughly Jewish origins. We can begin with standard dictionary definitions, but even here, there is a studied ambiguity. My Merriam-Webster has a single definition: “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group”. Dictionary.com is very similar, adding only “or national” group. The construction of the word is straightforward: geno+cide, from the Greek genos- (birth, origin, or race), and Latin –cide (from cidere: death, killing). The word was coined in 1944 by a Polish-Jewish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin, in light of the on-going Nazi attack on Jews. Etymologically, then, the meaning is, or should be, clear: the physical death of an entire race of people—that is, the physical elimination of a genotype.
But upon further examination, we immediately run into problems. First, as anyone knows who studies the issue, the Germans did not seek, nor did they implement, the physical annihilation of the Jews; rather, they wanted something much less ominous: a German Reich cleansed of Jews, by a process of deportation and removal. The deaths (and there were many thousands) were an incidental byproduct, not the objective.
Second, Lemkin himself explicitly decreed that genocide did not entail killing. A passage from his 1944 book is instructive:
New conceptions require new terms. By ‘genocide’ we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word, coined by the author to denote an old practice in its modern development, is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words as tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc. 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. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.
Here we see a fine example of Jewish duplicity at work. Genocide means “destruction” of an ethnic group, except when it doesn’t: “Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killing.” Rather, he says, it is a collection of actions aimed at the “destruction of essential foundations” of national life, i.e. the “disintegration of political and social institutions,” of “culture”, “language,” “national feelings,” “economic existence,” and so on. In the paragraph that follows the above, Lemkin even implies that something as benign as “confiscation of property” (!) may count as genocide, if targeted at people solely due to their ethnicity.
Much hinges on the meaning of the word ‘destruction’—a term used four times in Lemkin’s key paragraph. It turns out that this, too, has nonlethal meanings, and in no way demands the killing of the entity in question. ‘Destroy’ comes from de-struere, meaning to ‘de-structure’ or ‘unbuild’ something. The leading definition in my dictionary states: “to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of.” The word can mean ‘kill,’ but it also can mean ‘neutralize’, ‘subject to crushing defeat,’ or ‘demolish.’
Lemkin, then, uses ‘destruction’ in its nonlethal sense, allowing a whole variety of nonlethal activities to fall under the genocide umbrella. And all this was based on his contemporaneous experience with the Jews under Nazi Germany. Hence it seems that he was admitting that the “genocide” of the Jews—that is, the Holocaust—consisted primarily of nonlethal actions designed to eradicate Jewish life, culture, and predominance in the Reich. This, of course, is precisely the stance of present-day Holocaust revisionists, who have argued for a primarily nonlethal reading of German actions. So we have a striking conclusion: As defined by Lemkin, the Holocaust now can be read as a primarily nonlethal set of actions design to reduce or eliminate Jewish cultural and economic dominance in the Reich. This will surely come as news to the vast majority of the Western world.
A third problematic issue is that the UN largely adopted Lemkin’s interpretation in 1948. The “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” (GA Res 260A-III) states that the “odious scourge” of genocide shall be defined as follows (Article II):
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
- Killing members of the group;
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
This is an astonishingly broad and vague definition, to the point that it is virtually useless—or perhaps highly useful, for those who wish to use the term as a cudgel. And this is the formal, legal definition under international law!
Let’s analyze this for a moment. It declares as genocide “any” of the listed acts, with “intent to destroy” (how shall we judge intention? and what about the many meanings of ‘destroy’?), “in whole or in part” (how small a part?), a national, religious, or racial group. The culpable actions include killing, of course, but also “serious harm”, both bodily and mental (!). So psychological distress now counts as genocide. And what “conditions of life” could count as imposing “physical destruction, in whole or in part”, of a people? Genocide includes sterilizations or enforced abortions (ok), but also the forcible transfer of children—but not adults? Apparently not, otherwise they would not have added this point; they would have simply said “forcible transfer of people of the group…” Strange.
Not content with this impossibly vague definition, the UN proceeded to list all related actions that are punishable. In addition to the act of genocide itself, they include (Article III):
- Conspiracy (to commit genocide),
- Direct and public incitement (to genocide),
- Attempt (to commit genocide),
- Complicity (in genocide).
Again, impossibly vague and sweeping conditions that could plausibly include vast numbers of people.
Thus defined, the Nazis did indeed conduct a program of genocide—as did virtually every other government, in every military conflict, before or after WW2. As legally defined, the term is effectively worthless. It retains only rhetorical value. Had the international community stuck to the obvious and direct meaning—the killing of a targeted ethnicity with intent to eliminate—then it might have had some substance. As it is, the term is vaporous and functionally devoid of content. As with so many Jewish concepts, it means whatever they want it to mean.
Whites by the Numbers
Now, back to the topic at hand: White genocide. Armed with our impossibly-vague notion of genocide, indeed, governments and organizations everywhere are engaged in White genocide—as they are in black genocide, Hispanic genocide, Christian genocide, and on and on. Again, unless we are prepared to carefully and concisely define the term, it is worthless to rail against genocide of any stripe. Best to drop all such talk, and focus on real, concrete issues.
So what about the real, actual threats to White interests and White well-being? In the near term, it’s not ‘genocide’—which has now been revealed as a meaningless, amorphous Jewish concept—but rather declining political power and loss of self-determination. These are serious matters that deserve deeper examination.
First, though, a brief word on who counts as ‘White.’ Though obviously a color designator, pigmentation alone cannot define an ethnicity. Skin color is too diverse and subjective to serve a truly useful purpose. Equally useless is ‘Caucasian,’ which nominally refers to people of the Caucasus region, lying between the Caspian and Black Seas, and including parts of present-day Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Russia. Geographical features are likewise not much help, as the ‘European’ continent is typically said to extend as far east as the Ural Mountains, which are some 1,000 miles into Russia.
In the context of an alt-right discussion, we can plausibly limit Whiteness to people of indigenous European ancestry, comprising the current EU nations and their immediate neighbors (Switzerland, Sweden, Lithuania, and the former member-states of Yugoslavia). Western portions of the Ukraine and Belarus arguably count as well. Excluded are all indigenous Russians, along with Turks, North Africans, and all indigenous peoples of the Middle East. Jews are not White.
As for the status of Whites globally, the vast majority reside in the US, Europe (as defined above), Canada, and Australia. In rough numbers, there are around 750 million in these four areas, along with perhaps 50 million scattered throughout the rest of the world. So let us say, 800 million globally. This represents about 11% of humanity. White numbers are in gradual decline, but non-Whites are proliferating rapidly. Thus by 2050, when the planet reaches some 9.5 billion, Whites will drop to 8%.
In the US as well, the situation is not positive. The present White population of some 195 million (61%) is forecast to gradually decline to 185 million by 2050, according to the US Census Bureau. This would put Whites at around 48% of the US total, and therefore in a minority position before mid-century. Latest estimates put the crossover date around 2045.
Biracial and multiracial Americans, incidentally, are forecast to almost triple, from around 8 million (2.5%) to 22 million by 2050 (5.5%). Hispanic Americans will double, from 55 million (17%) to 110 million (28%). Black Americans will grow from 41 million to 55 million. The 21 million Asian Americans will double, to 43 million.
So, how do we assess the situation, from a White perspective? Negative for sure, potentially dire. American Whites are declining at around 0.15% per year, and European Whites at around 0.30%. If we assume a global average decline of about 0.25% annually, the total number of Whites will drop from 800 million today to around 655 million in 2100. Into the distant future, this implies something like 510 million in the year 2200, and 400 million in the year 2300. Projections beyond this are largely meaningless. It does imply the continuing existence of millions of Whites on Earth for centuries to come, but they will become increasingly marginalized as non-White population expands.
In the US, Whites could drop below 30% of the population by 2100, if present trends continue, and significantly less than that in several states. This bodes ill for the preservation and assertion of White interests, as we increasingly lose out to demands of non-Whites—who are, as we know, on the whole less intelligent, less industrious, and more antisocial. As non-White numbers grow, society pays a price. I can’t recall a single case where increasing non-White population brought demonstrable gains in quality of life. Anyone—any White—who has had firsthand experience of increasing diversity in their city or neighborhood can confirm this fact. In no case do things get better; they always get worse.
Restoring White Majority
What to do? In theory, the solution is clear: the country should be restored to a large White majority. As a nominal target, we can aim for the status of the country at the beginning, say, in 1800. At that time we had slightly more than 5 million people, of whom around 1 million were Black (slaves), along with a few thousand of other ethnicities and races. Hence the country was about 80% White.
Given that we are today around 60% White, it is not unrealistic to aim for a return to 80%. It can’t happen overnight, but given a long enough timeframe—say, 30 years—it is entirely achievable. In fact, we can put some hard numbers on this. Currently we have around 195 million Whites (60%) and 125 million non-Whites (40%). By 2050, we might like to have, say, 220 million Whites (80%) and 55 million non-Whites (20%), for a total of 275 million people. The non-White population thus would have to drop by about 2.3 million per year.
How, specifically, can this happen? Broadly speaking, it’s obvious: get more Whites and have fewer non-Whites. We can increase our White population by (a) increasing White immigration, (b) discouraging White emigration (a nonissue, in reality), and (c) increasing White birthrate. We can decrease our non-White population through the opposite policies: reduced immigration, increased emigration, and reduced birthrate.
Let me take each of these in turn. We can incentivize White immigration, much like we did in the early years of America: financial or other material enticements, and various service benefits. We could offer free (or subsidized) land or housing. Free job placement service. Free tuition at public universities. Free (or subsidized) health care. Again, all this only for true Whites, of wholly indigenous European background.
On the outbound side of the equation, White emigration is so small as to be irrelevant. According to the US State Department, some 9 million Americans are living abroad (non-military), but the annual departures are unknown, as are the number of Whites among these. The most common driver for White emigration is likely retirement, to cheaper foreign locations. We could offer better retirement benefits, to keep Whites in the country.
Increasing the White birthrate can be done by financial incentives (e.g. tax breaks, tuition assistance) and by education—on the need and benefits of an increasing White population. Larger White families could be positively portrayed, rather than, as is often the case today, glorifying the single lifestyle. This would require exerting control over a largely-Jewish mass media that is disinclined to assist Whites—to say the least.
Then let’s look at the non-White side of the ledger. This requires firm and decisive action. First, non-White immigration into the US must stop completely. Zero. Immediately. No refugees, no asylum-seekers, no family ‘chains,’ no corporate work visas, no student visas—nothing. Non-Whites should enter only as tourists, stay not more than a month, and then be compelled to leave. And this policy should stay in place indefinitely, until attaining the 80% goal.
On increasing emigration, this should be done as benignly and humanely as possible—voluntarily, but with financial incentives as encouragement. We can selectively raise costs on non-Whites (through taxes and special fees, for example), and we can offer financial payments, such as one-time travel or relocation expenses, to encourage them to leave. Simply by adjusting the amount of the incentives, we could control the rate of departure. If we need to lose around 2 million non-Whites annually, and if we offered an average of, say, $5,000 incentive per person, this would cost only $10 billion per year—a trifle, in a nation that allocates $1,000 billion per year to national security. And the cost would be more than offset by the gains in quality of life.
The question of citizenship remains. Non-White citizens who voluntarily emigrate would renounce their citizenship. Non-White non-citizens have no such issue, though they might receive less assistance. Birthright citizenship for non-Whites would be immediately ended.
Then there is the question of where they will go. Most non-Whites do in fact have a country of origin; only the blacks, generally, lack connection to a specific homeland. Of the 125 million non-Whites today, around 85 million (the non-blacks) can identify a nation of origin or a national homeland. They have a clear place of return. For the 40 million blacks, DNA analysis can now, in many cases, pinpoint a nation or African region from which they came. Special assistance may be required to ease a transition back, but this is the extra burden that White Americans must accept for their original sin of slavery.
The third point, reduced non-White birthrate, is perhaps the most contentious of all. Again, all measures would have to be humane and voluntary, but with incentives to comply. Free birth control, free abortion services, and free family planning advice are obvious first steps. Government could also offer free sterilization services for all childless non-White adults, along with a cash incentive. There would be no welfare handouts or subsidies for having children, and no tax breaks. In fact, there would be a tax penalty after, say, the second child. Non-White couples wishing to have large families would be invited to emigrate, where they could then have all the children they liked. No one says they can’t have kids; they just can’t have them here.
Such is my sketch of a plan to respond rationally and humanely to the social and political threats posed to Whites by rising numbers of non-Whites. We may call it the “great restoration”: restoring Whites to their traditional majority role, and restoring non-Whites to their native homelands. No one wants to admit it, but a large majority of repatriated non-Whites would flourish, especially with their cash incentives in hand. They return with relative wealth and education. They likely have extended family there. Their bodies are physiologically well-suited to their native climates (I’m thinking especially of blacks, who suffer through a whole range of health problems when living in non-tropical climates). They can be leading members of their societies, rather than members of a perpetual underclass among Whites.
Practically speaking, of course, we are a long way from implementing such a policy. It first needs to be discussed and debated among the alt-right community, and then to be incorporated into a political platform. Perhaps there needs to be a new party: The Great Restoration Party (GRP). Its primary plank would be to restore Whites to a dominant majority, and to return non-Whites to their native homelands.
If progress could be made here, all other political and economic challenges would fall in line. Imagine: an America in which the numbers of blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and Asians were cut in half. We can scarcely anticipate the benefits that would flow from such a situation. It would be all but miraculous. We had that once; we could have it again.
But we can imagine the outcry. Liberals and mainstream media, along with all non-Whites, will naturally scream ‘racism!’ and ‘fascism!’ at the mere mention of such a proposal. So be it. The discussion needs to begin, and it needs to begin now. There is no time to waste.
 See my book Debating the Holocaust (2015) for details.
 And perhaps we will now have to declare Lemkin an evil “Holocaust denier.”
 Pale skin is a necessary but not sufficient condition for whiteness. Many Middle-Easterners, Latinos, and Asians have equally pale skin, but they are not white in the requisite sense. The earliest true white people, incidentally, seem to have arisen, unsurprisingly, in the Scandinavian region. Excavations at Motala, Sweden have analyzed the genetics of people there dating to 5700 BC, finding both gene variants for light skin (along with a third variant for blond hair and blue eyes). Whiteness thus existed at this time, but likely not much sooner. Data from southern Europeans circa 6500 BC show a lack of the white genes, and they would likely have appeared to us as Black. It wasn’t until around 4000 BC that the white genes spread widely throughout Europe—a surprisingly recent date. (Interestingly, the genes themselves are quite ancient, appearing to have originated in Africa around 1 million years ago. But they were never expressed until people reached northern climates.)
 Europe (510 million), US (195 million), Canada (27 million), Australia (20 million).
 “Non-Hispanic Whites” in the lingo of the Bureau; these are ‘true whites.’
 These correspond to fertility rates of about 1.7 and 1.5, respectively (children per woman).
 Excepting the 20 million Asian Americans, who are, on average, more intelligent than whites. But they represent just 15% of non-Whites, and in any case, the many cultural and social differences make large numbers of them undesirable. Still, if there are to be any non-Whites in the US, they should be mostly Asian.
 This is not to say that 80% is the permanent goal. It is an interim target, upon which gains would have to be assessed and future actions evaluated. It may well turn out that white Americans would prefer a nation that was 90% or 95% white. This would be left to future generations.
 Since not all would accept the offer, unused funds could be redistributed to offer more to the ones willing to go. This would effectively create a kind of automatic ‘marketplace’ that would drive the assistance levels higher and higher, until people took them. Everyone has their price. Wealthy non-Whites, incidentally, would get no such assistance, and their financial penalties would have to be correspondingly increased, to encourage emigration.
 Even the (non-black) non-Whites who were “born here” still have, in the vast majority of cases, an identifiable nation of origin. For example, much has recently been made of the fact that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was “born here,” and thus has nowhere to return. This is nonsense. She is 100% Puerto Rican. Her father was born in New York to Puerto Ricans, and her mother was born in Puerto Rico itself.