In Defense of White Genocide

(and non-white genocide too)

lol

In 2024, Vivek Ramaswamy claimed that Democrats were plotting a “Great Replacement.” While he didn’t explicitly use the phrase “white genocide,” the two concepts are closely related. Ramaswamy has since reversed his position, but his overperformance in the 2024 primary demonstrates that this kind of rhetoric has been growing in popularity over the last two decades.¹

I support white genocide.² Ethnic displacement and cultural erasure³ of white people is less harmful than nationalism.⁴ However, I also support black genocide, and the genocide of Native Americans. In case you don’ want to read the whole article, here are the bulletpoints:

• No one has a consistent definition of genocide (except me).

• Moving people around is technically genocide, but it isn’t that bad. When it occurs voluntarily, it’s usually good.

• The Germans were genocided, but sometimes, genocide is justifiable.

• Civil Rights is white genocide, but it’s not a big deal.

• Native American genocide didn’t happen, and also, it was a good thing.

• Linguistic and cultural genocide is a net good.

There are always emotional costs to genocide, but these costs are generally outweighed by the economic benefits.

The Iceland-Congo Swap

Imagine loading the population of the Congo into 435 container ships.⁵ These ships sail to Iceland, and vice versa, swapping populations.⁶

Iceland would be filled with Congolese, at 3x the density of Gaza. The Congo would be settled by 393,000 Icelanders, who would set about to rebuild the 1st world largely from scratch.

Over time, the “Territory Formerly Known as Iceland” (TFKI) would resemble Detroit — cold, black, violent, and poor. Meanwhile, the “Territory Formerly Know as the Congo” (TFKC) would see its GDP per capita rapidly increase.⁷ TFKC would resemble the interior of Florida — a swamp of sunburnt white people.⁸

Both populations would be completely genocided — forcibly displaced from their ethnic homelands at gunpoint, and not allowed to return home. From the point of view of nationalism, nothing could be more evil.

But from my point of view, the long-term outcome is neutral. So long as we have have not mass murdered any Congolese or Icelanders, and so long as global GDP hasn’t changed as a result, preventing this kind of “deathless genocide” is low on my list of priorities.

My thought experiment sounds far fetched. But over the last 500 years, this exact scenario has happened multiple times. Beginning in 1492, millions of Europeans migrated to America, along with millions of enslaved Africans. Then, since 1948, the exact opposite occurred, with millions of non-Europeans moving into Europe and America. All mass migration is “genocidal” in the sense that it erases, overwrites, or alters local cultures, and produces a more globalized world. But after comparing these harms against the fruit of globalization, I stand on the side of genocide.⁹

Consistently Supporting Genocide

Most people neither consistently oppose genocide; nor do they consistently support it. See the Punnett Square below:

W = “pro white genocide;” w = “anti white genocide”; N = “pro native genocide”; n = “anti native genocide.”

• Conservatives:¹⁰ Pro native genocide, but anti white genocide.

• Superficial Leftists:¹¹ Anti native genocide, but pro white genocide.

• Medievalists:¹² Oppose any movement of people ever.

• Deep Leftists:¹³ Support all forms of genocide.

Deep Leftism combines weird racism (excusing the genocide of Native Americans) with woke globalism (excusing white genocide).

German Genocide

No one wants to consistently define genocide. Everyone has an incentive to downplay some genocides, and victim-monger for others.¹⁴ But any objective definition of genocide must admit: what happened to Germany in the 20th century was genocidal.

23 million Germans were killed or displaced out of 80 million, which comes out to a genocide rate of 29%.¹⁵ Maybe Germans deserved to be genocided. But whether or not a people deserve genocide is meaningless for the definition of genocide.¹⁶

Killing in self-defense is “justifiable homicide,” and unjustified homicide is “murder.” In the same way, perhaps the killing and displacement of 29% of the German population was justifiable genocide. But whether justified or unjustified, that doesn’t make it any less of a genocide.¹⁷

Civil Rights Genocide

White nationalists claim that black-on-white crime is genocidal. This seems ridiculous: blacks have killed less than 200,000 whites over 400 years, only 0.1% of the white population.¹⁸

However, intimidation and threats are forms of coercion. Since 1950, four million whites (mostly working class) fled New York City. None of this was voluntary: whites fled black riots and crime. This was a genocide of 58% of the 1950 population; twice as genocidal as what happened to the Germans, and 16x more genocidal than Gaza.¹⁹ If displacing 58% of a population is genocide, then Civil Rights was a genocide.²⁰

My point here isn’t to be hysterical about Civil Rights, but to demonstrate how genocide is not a big deal. Despite the genocide of urban, working-class white Americans, GDP continued to go up; the state did not collapse; and life went on.²¹

Linguistic Genocide

There are more expansive definitions of genocide which include “loss of cultural integrity.” If the white man forces brown children to speak English, and the brown man forgets how to speak his old language, that is considered “linguistic genocide.” Russians similarly argued that the Ukrainian state was conducting “linguistic genocide” in the Donbass.²²

Consider that 660 million people in the Americas speak Spanish; 120 million Africans speak French. Are these 780 million people “victims of linguistic genocide”?²³ If so, then black slang is also a form of white genocide. When a white Zoomer says bet, cap, bussin, lit, sus, extra, lowkey, and on God, this is an erasure of traditional white culture.

On the other hand, black Americans speak English, not Igbo or Swahili. If black people speak more like whites, and whites speak more like blacks, the resulting creole is double linguistic genocide. Whenever we communicate across cultures, we are conducting a mutually assured genocide on one another.²⁴

Rather than argue over definitions, I’d rather agree and amplify. Yes: cultural and linguistic mixing is genocidal, but genocide is usually a net positive.²⁵

Native American Genocide

How many Native Americans were murdered during colonization? I regret to inform my hysterical Marxist friends that 2,280 Indians died in combat at the hands of the American government.²⁶

But what about the trail of tears?!

The trail of tears killed 6,000 people.

But what about the small pox blankets?!

Marxists claim that white people killed 56 million natives.²⁷ However, these deaths were due to disease. Sneezing on someone and accidentally giving them small pox is not the same as intentionally murdering them.

Smallpox was introduced to Mexico in 1519; it was introduced to Massachusetts in 1633. These events predate the small pox blanket plot of 1763 by 130 to 244 years. Given the rate at which disease spreads, it is inconceivable that the plot of 1763 made up a significant proportion of those supposed 56 million deaths.²⁸

Debunking the “Race War”

During the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire, most fighting was done by natives resisting Aztec imperialism. The war could be accurately called the Nahua Revolution, or the Aztec Civil War. This is inconvenient for both white nationalists and for native victimologists.

• White nationalists don’t want to admit this, because it detracts from the narrative of white superiority — whites aren’t superior, they were just at the right place at the right time, aided by disease.

• Native victimologists also don’t want to admit this, because it detracts from the narrative of white culpability — white people merely helped kick off a native revolution against other natives, which may have happened anyway.

The war between the Aztecs and Nahua dates back to 1454, before Columbus sailed the ocean blue.²⁹ The Nahua resented the Aztecs, and leaped at the chance to overthrow them.

During the Conquest of Guatemala, a mere 400 Spaniards accompanied 10,000 Nahua warriors, along with other native tribes. The concept of a “race war,” with whites fighting non-whites, is false. Spaniards made up only 4% of the anti-Aztec forces.³⁰

(Pictured: Cortez, flanked by his native ally, spears a white chud.) De Narvaez fought Cortez at the Battle of Cempoala; a “multi-cultural” force under Cortez beat a larger “whites-only” force under Narvaez.

Why I support white genocide:

Over the last 100 years, humanity has reduced child mortality through sanitation, sewage systems, antiseptics, hand-washing, antibiotics, and vaccines. Weaker humans are surviving, having children, and gradually, slowly, but surely decreasing the genetic quality of the species. This decline in human quality, if not eventually reversed, will lead to the collapse of civilization.³¹

There are two alternatives:

1. Classical eugenics, where states sterilize the “unfit.”

2. The acceleration of biological technology so that traits can be selected for voluntarily by individuals, leading to an increase in genetic quality.

Classical eugenics is unlikely and morally hazardous.³² The only legitimate path to address the decline of human quality is voluntary selection through biological technology. Some women might choose to have babies with Down Syndrome, but most women want strong, healthy, attractive, and intelligent babies, and will act accordingly if given the necessary tools.³³ Unfortunately for white nationalists, the best way to increase the availability of this biological technology is through economic growth, and that requires white genocide.

The average Chinese person makes $14,000 a year. But when Chinese people immigrate to America, they increase their incomes by a factor of 4x. If the entire population of China moved to America, it would be the equivalent of quadrupling the wealth of China. Immigration unleashes human capital, which is currently trapped in an inefficient system.³⁴

Conclusion.

The goal of Deep Leftism is to increase the mobility of people and goods, to unleash economic productivity, drive innovation, and solve the problem of global genetic decline. White nationalists refer to this as “white genocide.” Rather than arguing over definitions, its simpler to say: “ok, then white genocide is good!”³⁵

In truth, I don’t want to reduce the global population of whites. In fact, immigration slows white demographic decline, because it reduces the birth rates of third world populations. This point is lost on white nationalists, who believe that even if the global white population increased from 8% to 9%, it would still be white genocide, so long as whites were “reduced to a minority within their own countries.” Such is the pettiness of the nationalist position.

Immigration results in “whitelash.”³⁶ Conservatives don’t criticize immigration because they looked at statistics, measured the pros and cons, and found it to be a net negative. They criticize immigration because they feel that immigrants are dirty, hostile, dangerous, threatening, ethnocentric, disloyal, untrustworthy, deceptive, and resentful. They perceive immigration as a malicious conspiracy by leftists (read: Jews) to destroy western civilization.

There are a few ways we can reduce this perception:

1. Deboost social media posts that portray immigrants negatively;

2. Force immigrants to engage in performative affirmations of civility (deport any immigrant that criticizes America or white people);

3. Promote female immigration over male immigration;

4. Increase European immigration, which results in less cultural and identitarian conflict;

5. Legalize segregation;

6. Create an “immigration dividend” where visa fees go into a pool that provides UBI for native citizens;

7. Institute “tough on crime” policies;

8. Eliminate welfare benefits for immigrants and their children.

Besides direct solutions, there are also indirect ways to reduce white anxiety. Right-wingers might scapegoat immigrants because they feel frustrated in general that they are losing “the culture war,” and anti-immigrant sentiment is a second-order effect. By dialing down the most aggravating aspects of wokeness (Latinx, trans-folx, paper straws), it’s possible that anti-immigrant sentiment would also decrease as a result.

In a democratic system, the best way to diffuse “whitelash” is to combine liberal policies together with an implicitly white, masculine veneer; a Blue Caesar. Because the innovative benefits of immigration are so large, they outweigh the costs of leftism (government spending, entitlement expansion). For this reason, I promote Graham Platner as a model for future Democratic candidates, and await his victory in November.³⁷

1. Pro-whites disagree on many topics:

• “Abortion is good because it keeps the blacks down.” (Richard Spencer)

• “While I don’t support interracial marriage, it’s not a sin and should be legal.” (Nick Fuentes)

• “Asians are smarter, and black people are more athletic, but even if whites were the most wretched people on Earth, I would still support them, because they are my people.” (Jared Taylor)

The pro-white movement spans a wide variety of ideologies, ranging from secular libertarianism, National Socialism, Integralism, Christian Dominionism, Nietzscheanism, MAGA Trumpism, pagan revivalism, and so on. None of these people can agree on much, and can barely tolerate one another, but they all agree that white genocide is bad, and that mass immigration is the #1 driver of white genocide.

White genocide is the following narrative:

1. After the Freemasonic revolutions in America and France based on Enlightenment Liberalism, whites granted religious toleration to Jews.

2. Jews became overrepresented in banking, finance, media, and politics.

3. After destroying Nazi Germany, Jews lobbied for:

   1. Mass immigration of non-whites to white countries (1965 Hart Cellar);

   2. Sexual revolution to decrease the white birth rate (2nd wave feminism, contraception, abortion);

   3. Decriminalization of interracial marriage (Civil Rights Act);

   4. Criminalization of racial segregation (Brown v Board);

   5. Disproportionate representation of interracial relationships in media and advertising (Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, Kanye and Kim Kardashian);

   6. The promotion of humiliating, degrading, and demoralizing stereotypes about whites, like “blondes are dumb” or “white guys can’t dance/jump” or “white people are corny/nerdy/lame”

   7. The promotion of uplifting, attractive, and moralizing stereotypes about non-whites, like “Asians are smarter,” or “black people are more athletic,” or “Latinas are hot”

   8. The promotion of interracial pornography;

   9. The promotion of non-white masculinity in sports such as football and basketball;

   10. The banning of pro-white speech either through control of social media or direct state intervention.

4. The purpose of these programs is to reduce the white population to zero, so that racially pure Jewish supremacists can rule over the beige, race-mixed, deracinated masses, who they will enslave in a global Jewish caste system.

5. However, because of theological laws about hubris and the fall of Satan, the Jews themselves will be cannibalized by the beige hoardes they created.

6. Finally, the human race returns to a state of cannibalism and anarchy, so that the whole world will look like South Africa or Haiti, with infinite favelas made of scrap metal, rape gangs burning their victims openly in the streets, the total loss of technology and a return to the primitivism of the 18th century, or even earlier.

The white genocide narrative has many variations. Some Jews oppose white genocide, so they cut out the part of the narrative that blames Jews, and instead blame “liberals” or “the woke mind virus.”

If we equivocate support of mass immigration with support for white genocide, then I am a supporter of white genocide, and I am anti-white.

I could protest against these labels and this semantic frame. I could say that I am actually pro-white, because I like white people. I don’t want to see white people physically harmed or forced out of existence; I don’t want to restrict white people’s rights. I oppose the British policy of locking up 30 people a day for “hate speech.” I am in favor of freedom of association. Given the choice, I would prefer to watch a movie with an all-white cast as opposed to a diverse cast, because I am more attracted to whites and can more easily empathize with them and imagine myself in their shoes.

However, none of these objections to the term “anti-white” would do much good. Axiomatically, for the white genocide crowd, if you support mass immigration, then you support white genocide, end of story. Any sort of caveat or excuse beyond that point is simply Jewish mind tricks meant to confuse the goyim.

I have witnessed many Jews attempt to subvert the frame and cast themselves as a “based Jew,” the exception to the rule. Mike Benz, for example, claimed to be fighting white genocide a decade ago; he now claims that he was running a “deradicalization campaign against the far-right.” This has led to many conspiracy theories that his purpose wasn’t really to fight white genocide, but to subvert the pro-white movement. Nathan Cofnas, another pro-white Jew, complains about how dumb and antisemitic the right-wing is, and this makes it impossible for it to succeed.

Rather than trying to outdo these brilliant right-wing Jews, I instead accept the label of anti-white, and I endorse white genocide, on the grounds that I support immigration.

2. Recently, this Substack has gotten too popular. I keep doing interviews with mainstream and moderate political figures all across the political spectrum, who are attracted to my normal and reasonable views. This state of affairs is unsustainable and must be ended at once.

The hardest part about writing this essay is the clickbait title. If I lead with defending white genocide, I’m going to get a bunch of Nazis who don’t read the essay filling my comments section with antisemitic death threats. If I lead with defending black genocide, I’ll get some small percentage of moderates and liberals mad at me. The latter, however, are much more likely to say something benign, like “um, this essay seems highly inappropriate, and slightly racist. You’re like weird, or something.”

Unfortunately, I am a pervert, and I am sexually aroused by Nazi death threats. Liberal shaming tactics just don’t do it for me. White genocide it is!

(I’m not advocating for the extinction of the human race.)

3. (population reductions and displacements)

4. What did you expect?

5

• A shipping container can fit 10 people, along with a porta-pottie and military rations.

• The MSC Irina can transport 243,460 people in one trip.

• The Congo has 105.8 million people, so this would require 435 trips to transport.

• Each trip would last 60 days for a total trip time of 71.5 years.

• Assuming a rental cost of $36 million per year, the total cost to deport all Congolese to Iceland would be $2.57 billion.

6. Illustration:

.

7. Assuming that the economic productivity of each population remains fixed.

8. I would rather live in Disneyland than Detroit.

I have no particular attachment to the cultural traditions, cuisine, or physical landscape of either locales. I am sure that Iceland is a great place to visit, and the Congo is a frightening and distressing place to visit, unless you pay armed guards to take you on a guided nature tour without much interaction with the populace.

9. I am not in favor of forcibly relocating populations, as we imagined in the Iceland-Congo swap. However, allowing freedom of movement between countries is a net good. This was true in 1492, and it remains true in 2026. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t negative consequences to migration — just that the good outweighs the evil.

10. grass-green (top right). (or light green, I am colorblind) Conservatives think that the genocide of natives was justified because the Aztecs did human sacrifice. If you say “America is founded on genocide,” conservatives call you “globalist” and “woke.”

11. cyan (bottom left). (or light blue, this is a horrible color scheme). If you say “Haiti is founded on genocide,” leftists will not contest the mass slaughter of whites, but they will call you “racist” and “weird.” Leftists think whites deserve to be murdered for the crime of colonialism. (which apparently, no other race has ever done.)

12. dark blue (lower right). They support “nationalism for all peoples.” They think that American colonization was a mistake.

13. red (top left). See what I did there?

14. If you’re a leftist, you must believe that Palestinians are being subjected to genocide; if you’re a conservative, you must reject this claim. If you’re pro-white, you must believe that Boers are being subjected to genocide; if you’re a leftist, you must reject this claim. My position is that neither Palestinians nor Boers are being subjected to full genocide, but they are getting a little genocide-y on the genocide spectrum.

15. That’s 7.84x higher than what Gazans have endured. [In Gaza, if 74,000 people died out of 2 million, which is 3.7% of the population.]

In addition to 9 million dead Germans, 14 million Germans were forcibly displaced from their homes at gun point and never allowed to return. (Here we define displacement as a form of genocide)

The allies committed to this genocide, not because of the Holocaust (which had not started in 1939), but because Germany invaded Poland. During the Soviet-German invasion of Poland, 66,000 Poles were killed before they gave up and surrendered.

On October 7th, Hamas killed 1,200 civilians in a single day, or 0.012% of the total Israeli population. In Germany’s war against Poland, the German military killed 0.19% of the Polish civilian population. Roughly speaking, the Germans did something to Poland which was 20x worse than what Hamas did to Israel. We could say then that the Israeli response was an overreaction (by the standard of Germany) by a factor of 3x.

Let’s say that the Israelis eventually expel or kill 400,000 Gazans to make room for hotels. This would only amount to 10% dead and 10% displaced, for a total genocide rate of 20%. From all the information we have so far, the war in Gaza just isn’t as genocidal as what the allies did to the Germans.

16. If we don’t define genocide as “a certain number of people killed or displaced,” then the word is meaningless propaganda.

I didn’t have time to include this in the article, but check out the genocide of Middle Eastern Christians:

17. There’s a difference between murder and justifiable homicide, but both are homicide. Maybe there’s “murderous genocide” and “justifiable genocide,” but they’re both genocide, whether or not they are morally deserved.

We could say that pedophiles deserve to be killed, while innocent children do not, and admit that both fit the definition of “homicide.”

Aside #1: Did the Holocaust prevent genocide?

The Holocaust was a genocide. But according to some white nationalists, the Nazi Holocaust was an act of self-defense. In the same way that killing a robber breaking into your house is a justifiable homicide, the Holocaust was a justifiable genocide. To make this argument, white nationalists claim that Jews today are engineering the conditions of white genocide. These conditions are as follows:

1. When interracial couples are depicted in advertising

2. When the white percentage of the population decreases

3. When the white birth rate decreases

4. When white people are “taught to hate themselves”

If we look at Germany in 1932, which was supposedly the height of Jewish supremacy before the Nazi takeover, all of these conditions applied to Jews. Jews were encouraged to intermarry and assimilate; Jews were shrinking as a proportion of the population; the Jewish birth rate was decreasing; and Jews were encouraged to become self-hating. To claim that Jews were being subjected to genocidal conditions in 1932, however, seems to be too equivocal in the face of the Holocaust.

Had the conditions of 1932 persisted, in the absence of a Nazi Holocaust, the state of Israel would not exist today. The six million Jews who perished would have lived on to have a TFR approaching 1.0, with an intermarriage rate above 50%, meaning the effective pure-Jewish TFR would be something like 0.5. Since a TFR of 2.1 is required for a stable population, this means each subsequent generation would be 25% the side of the previous generation. 75% of Jews would be wiped out in this manner.

Would such conditions be genocidal? Did the actions of Hitler prevent a genocide by other means, and help reinvigorate a failing Jewish identity by empowering a stagnating Zionist movement?

---

Aside #2: Can Opportunity Cost Be Genocidal?

If I force a gay man into the closet, so that he marries a woman and has children, have I prevented homicide? If I tolerate him to live as a gay man, siring no children, have I caused homicide?

Legally, no. Manipulating, influencing, or encouraging someone not to have children is not homicidal. If that were the case, then every first grade teacher would be a murderer, because female literacy is one of the greatest contraceptives in human history.

There are practical distinctions to be made:

1. In economic terms, murder is destructive, whereas voluntary celibacy is not.

2. When a majority exterminates a minority, it threatens the principles of liberalism, and the tolerance of difference, in a way that voluntary celibacy does not.

3. When physical violence is made permissible, large majorities can overwhelm small minorities, leading to mob rule.

Chinese Genocide

Claims of white genocide can be more easily applied to Asians and blacks. Both groups are subjected to the same conditions — interracial advertisements and low fertility. Asians are growing as a percentage of the American population due to immigration; but globally, the Asian population is still shrinking. Should we be worried about Chinese genocide?

Some white nationalists claim that, yes, the Jews are genociding the Chinese too — their goal is to mix all the races together into a perfect slave race with no identity or sense of self. But this isn’t the effect of race-mixing: mixed race people, like Nick Fuentes, Obama, Sneako, Andrew Tate, and others are more racist than pure-bred whites or blacks. Race mixing increases racism and antisemitism.

Aside #3: Is genocide good or bad?

There are two arguments why genocide would be bad:

1. Ethnocentrism is intrinsically good, regardless of externalities.

2. Whites have a special sauce which produces positive externalities.

The first argument can be made more sophisticated via creationism:

1. God created white people

2. God is perfectly good, and His creation is good

3. The white race is a product of creation, not man’s fallen state

4. The existence of the white race is perfectly good

5. Any attempt to undermine this existence is a sin against God’s creation.

The argument can also be made with the naturalistic fallacy by replacing “God” with “evolution,” and replacing “the fallen state of man” with “slave morality.”

It’s a racial Chesterton’s Fence. If we eliminate the white race, then this will destroy one of the foundations of existence. Orthodox Jews actually believe this: that if the Jewish people were to be entirely exterminated, the entire universe would cease to be, because Jewishness is the telos of the entire universe. When put in this way, the argument is exposed as petty and Calvinistic.

In Platonism, there is no value in diversity: an ugly chair does not add value to a beautiful chair. Platonism is a philosophy of supremacy, because it seeks the highest good, rather than respecting traditional dogmas of the ancestors. The good sought by Platonism is the perfection of man, not the preservation of a diversity of types.

Turning to the “special sauce” argument: if it were true, the pursuit of special sauce should lead us to pursue genetic science to reverse-engineer the sauce. White nationalism is antithetical to scientific progress, because it is anti-economic: White nationalism believes in degrading state capacity, closing borders, raising tariffs, mass deportations, curtailment of civil liberties, wars of extermination, mass population transfers, etc etc. Not all white nationalists believe in all of these things, but they generally believe in at a least a few of these policies.

If white people faced a violent physical extermination similar to the Nazi Holocaust, it would be the duty of all people to defend the white race, just as it was the duty of humanity to stop the Holocaust. Until and unless that occurs, the costs of white nationalism are higher than the costs of white demographic decline. But yes, if someone starts targeting white people with physical violence, I will be the first to advocate for their defense.

18. In the worst case scenario, black people have been killing ~500 whites every year for the last 400 years, for a total of 200,000 black-on-white murders.

Conspiracists claim this 500 per year figure is increasing, however, because the woke left defunds the police, and this results in an exponential increase in black-on-white murder. But there’s no evidence of this.

Murdering 0.1% of the population over 400 years does not constitute a genocide. White homicide victimization has remained stagnant, or decreased, for 45 years. The sharp rise in homicide in the 1980s (thanks, Reagan!) mostly affected blacks and Hispanics.

source

19.

From 1970 to 1980, New York City lost 1.75 million white people over the span of 10 years. That’s more than the number of white Americans who died in WW1, WW2, and the Civil War — combined.

20. Every large city in America has experienced white genocide, with over 10 million incidents of “white flight.” The first 10 cities lost 4.9 million whites; the next 10 lost 3 million; the next 10 lost 1.1 million.

Whites organized mass protests in the South and in Boston against bussing. You could argue that since they didn’t start shooting cops, they weren’t “really” protesting, so it’s not “really” genocide. But this is like saying that because Jews got on cattle cars voluntarily, that the Holocaust was voluntary. Desegregation happened at gunpoint.

For every 7.2 white or Castizo living in the Americas today, 1 Native America had to die in the process of colonization. Now let’s compare this to desegregation and white genocide: for every 4 black Americans who gained Civil Rights, 1 white American was expelled by violent threats of racial intimidation.

Killing people is worse than expelling them from their homes. I would much rather be expelled than killed. But whether someone is killed or expelled, it’s still genocide.

credit

21. Leftists might scoff and say that I’m exaggerating the suffering of urban white Americans. At the same time, they will cry a river over “gentrification.” The double-standard is clear as day. I’m just trying to establish an objective standard of what genocide is, and to apply that standard consistently.

22. Russians claim that the Ukrainian government, by incentivizing or forcing the speaking of Ukrainian over Russian, was carrying out a “cultural genocide.”

23. Wokesters say yes: linguistic genocide is a form of cultural genocide, and it is very serious, and we need to do land acknowledgements and fetishize dead languages that no one can speak. The same people deny that rape, murder, and riots forced 10 million whites into the suburbs.

24.

92% genocide. source

25. In a world where 9 million people die due to starvation and malnutrition every year, I just can’t take any of this very seriously.

source

26.

27. 404 million whites (212 million white Americans and 192 Castizos) prance around on the graves of stolen land. For every 7.2 white North and South Americans living today, 1 native had to die.

28. Perhaps the conditions under which natives were coerced onto farms contributed to the spread of disease, because natives were brought into contact with farm animals which carry pathogens. However, there was nothing deliberately murderous about this: Europeans had very little interest in killing off their labor supply. The increased risk of disease as a result of agriculture was an unintended consequence, and not part of a plan for deliberate genocide.

It was only in 1700 that Europeans started to theorize that it might be possible for diseases and infections to spread by physical contact through inanimate objects — long after 99% of the damage was done.

A strong effort was made by the Catholic Church to provide for better conditions for natives. Ironically, it was humanists, like Sepúlveda, who argued in favor of enslaving the natives on the basis of Aristotelian philosophy, while traditionalists in the church argued against slavery. There is no evidence that at any point in the first 100 years of colonization (when all the deaths happened) that whites intentionally used infections to kill natives.

29. Rather than conquer the Nahua, the Aztecs invaded Nahua territory to kidnap humans for sacrifices. The Nahua state was a “breeding pen” that the Aztecs allowed to exist so that it could be ritually slaughtered.

30. The Aztecs lost the Nahuan Revolutionary War because their empire relied upon non-Aztec troops, who deserted and joined the revolutionaries. The Conquistadors were like Jewish Bolsheviks, mobilizing repressed peasants against a corrupt aristocracy.

In 1906, the Bolsheviks had 13,000 members, and this doubled by to 24,000 members in February 1917. Seven months later, this increased to 200,000 members. [Cohen, Stephen (1980). Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography 1888–1938. p. 46.] As the Bolsheviks took control of the state, they drafted illiterate Russian peasants into their cause, many of whom were Christian, but who resented the Tsar enough that they were willing to fight under Bolshevik command.

Arguing that white Spaniards are responsible for all the deaths in the Nahua Revolution is like arguing that Jews were responsible for all the deaths in the Russian Civil War. Jews were disproportionately represented in positions of leadership, but most of the fighting and dying was done by Russian Christians in pursuit of liberation from an oppressive system.

Both the Russian Civil War and Aztec Civil War resulted in death and destruction, but to place 100% of the blame on the vanguard of that revolution (Bolshevik party members or Spanish Conquistadors) is to strip the vast majority of the soldiers of their agency.

Contrary to the myth of European superiority, when Europeans lacked native allies, they lost. The best claim to European superiority lies in the Battle of Cajamarca, but the actual events of the battle involve an ambush and a massacre of unarmed slaves rather than a standard battle between two militant forces.

31. A sudden collapse of civilization, in which we lose the capacity to reduce child mortality, could set humanity back 200 years or more.

This is hard to imagine, but not impossible, given the historical precedent of the collapse of Rome in the 5th century, or the Bronze Age Collapse of 1200 BC, the Bell Beaker invasion of 3000 BC, and, more speculatively, the Black Sea collapse of 5600 BC. Each of these collapses led to a reduction in technological development and a Dark Age of stagnation. Europe did not recover from the collapse of Rome until 1200, around 800 years later, and Greece did not recover from the Bronze Age collapse for about 400 years. Black Sea civilization, with its colonies in Lepinski Vir and the Cucuteni-Trypilia Civilization, may have taken 1,000 years to advance back to its previous point of development.

Given the ubiquity of books and their preservation in vaults and chambers underground, it is difficult to imagine that all modern knowledge would be lost for 1,000 years. Still, even a lapse of 400 years of stagnation would be a tragedy.

32. What are the criteria of fitness? Who decides? What about the value of diversity? Producing a popular democratic consensus is impossible.

Since 1939, public opinion has turned sharply against eugenics, to the point now where it is part of the foundational moral package created in the aftermath of Nuremberg. To support eugenics is to fight the weight of all institutions, all morality, all religious inertia. It is opposed both by the Christians, and the left. This is impossible within a democratic system.

The only option open to address the decline of human quality is to allow for voluntarily selection. By giving people the tools to instantiate their desires, human quality will be maintained, and perhaps even advanced.

There are religious and leftist moral objections to voluntary embryo selection or gene editing. Even if these moral qualms could be overcome, the technology as it stands is not efficient, powerful, or cheap enough to make a dent in the average quality of the average baby. Much more work is needed.

33. I prescribe a speedrun, unlocking of the genetic tech skill tree with the available resources, as fast as possible, before the window of opportunity for innovation closes.

Even if religious and leftist moral objections are overcome, the technology is not cheap enough to be used by those who most need it — the welfare dependent and chronically diseased. This is why it is necessary for the state to subsidize these technologies.

Conservatives claim that we could obtain these benefits through “eugenic natalism,” but such policies are unlikely to succeed in democratic systems. Government benefits always benefit the poor more than the middle classes.

The Axis of Negation

The “axis of negation” refers to the way in which low IQ populations place a logistical burden upon high IQ populations. Every parent who takes care of an infant has experienced how this responsibility degrades one’s capacity for thoughtful contemplation. At a civilizational scale, India has a small population of intelligent innovators, and a large population of manual laborers who produce constant problems and require constant maintenance.

In 630 AD, there were smart people, but they were busy dealing with the fact that Europe was a total mess. They did not have time to innovate or think about much other than basic survival. Today, there are geniuses in South Africa, but very little innovation, because all the geniuses are wasting their time fighting the degradation and collapse of the state, and thus have no time for anything beyond this.

In the past, manual laborers were a boon to the agricultural economy. As agriculture becomes automated, these manual laborers must be educated, or become an economic liability via the welfare system. This costs the time and resources of trained educators (who are at worst, daycare workers), which end up being wasted if standards are lowered below a certain threshold. The innovative elite, who are responsible for solving all these problems. As the dependent population grows, and the innovative population declines, the dependency ratio increases, and innovative breakthroughs become less likely.

We must speedrun the tech tree before the “axis of negation” reaches the threshold beyond which no innovation is possible.

natalism.

1. Natalists underestimate the axis of negation. If a pro-natal policy increases the number of dependent idiots, that will negate innovative gains.

2. Natalists claim they will add “IQ barriers” to natalist benefits. But natalists underestimate how unpopular such policies would be.

3. Natalists claim that such policies have been implemented in Germany, and they were successful. However, natalists confuse a small policy with a large one. Natalists have a naive and overly optimistic view of democratic politics.

The only serious natalists are theocrats who demand a ban on birth control and female education. The problem is that this is a total fantasy with no basis in reality and it will never happen.

The best case for natalism is that certain policies “fly in under the radar” and provide support to educated women to have more children. Those policies would be marginally good, but will only slow the decline — they will not reverse it. The worst case scenario for natalism is some horrifying favela world where Effective Altruists funnel all wealth into fertility programs for the poor, which will accelerate the collapse of civilization.

I would be pleasantly surprised if natalist policies managed to avoid increasing the idiot-dependency ratio, while increasing innovative capacity. I hope I am wrong and natalists are able to achieve a “eugenic” policy. However, I am extremely cynical about the capacity of democracy to deliver these results. I expect high-minded natalist policies to end up degrading into welfare program for 70 IQ single mothers.

34. This is poorer than the poorest 90% black county in the poorest state in the country. This is below the poverty line. Chinese people are exceptionally poor. No African migrants are desperate to move to China. When an African manages to pull together a few thousand dollars to escape the continent, looking for a better life, he does not look toward China.

The reasons why China is so poor, despite being so smart, are debatable. Maybe it’s because the Chinese government is wastefully building excessive highspeed rail, or empty apartment buildings for a declining population, or allowing people to retire at 55, or some other weird communist program. Maybe Chinese people are poor because they spend all their money supporting boomers in retirement. Maybe they are poor because despite their intelligence and education, China is a centrally planned economy with massive inefficiencies. Or maybe none of these explanations are true, and the problem is something else entirely.

35. I was never going to convince these people anyway, so upsetting them further won’t hurt.

Dirty Harry Leftism

36. In my piece on Yookay Rape Gangs, I argue that the phenomenon of Pakistani rapists deserves a proportionate response, and mass deportations do not qualify. But also argue that a performative response is warranted, not to scare the Pakistanis, but to placate the whites. I call this “Dirty Harry Leftism,” wherein figures like Keir Starmer adopt a performative “tough on crime” approach, while continuing to import foreigners.

I am cynical of this coming to fruition because the left is filled with impractical ideologues, but theoretically, I think it is the right approach.

Here is what I imagine: an immediate state of emergency in cities like Detroit, Baltimore, Gary, South Chicago, North St. Louis, and Newark. He mobilizes 100,000 National Guard troops to patrol the streets, institutes a curfew, and conduct mass arrests. 1,000 stop and frisks per day. An effective curfew. Highly visible, televised, militarized raids of suspected criminals. A war on crime unlike anything ever seen before.

Americans hate no go zones. 90% of White Americans, Republican and Democrat, are aware of and fearfully avoid the “inner city.” It is an intractable problem which no president since Nixon has ever been able to resolve. A large enough show of force, something truly terrifying and impressive, would scatter inner city criminals like cockroaches.

Causing criminals to flee from their nests wouldn’t necessarily reduce the national crime rate, but it would win the hearts and minds of white Americans, who are tired of living in fear of the dark corners of the country. Even if white Americans are successful in avoiding these areas, their very existence is humiliating and threatening. If the government allows lawlessness in one neighborhood, will it spread? Will my neighborhood be next?

Mobilizing the National Guard would only be the first stage, a shock-and-awe campaign. The second stage would be the federalization of the police. This would be unconstitutional, but we are fantasizing about Blue Caesar.

Police federalization means that instead of having a rag-tag band of cops in every small town across America, all cops would be part of a national standing army who could be deployed anywhere at any time, controlled directly by the president.

In order to achieve this federalization, all cops would be pulled from non-violent enforcements: no more stings against Asian massage parlors; no more speed traps; no more “sitting in a car at an active construction zone with the lights on.” In areas with murder rates below the national average, the police force would be reduced by 50%, so that those cops could be sent on missions into the inner city to conduct mass patrols.

What I imagine is that in the most dangerous neighborhoods of Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, and St. Louis, there would be cops on every single street corner. This would not be expensive, since the budget would be siphoned from low-crime communities around the country.

Perhaps some rural cop in Tennessee does not want to be bussed into Baltimore to do day-care duty in a black neighborhood. No cop wants to enter an active war zone and be called “racist” by the civilians. This is because most cops are cowardly and lazy, just like the average America. They are not psychos.

The problem of inner city policing isn’t that we don’t have the money, or the numbers, or the weapons necessary. The psychology is lacking. It requires 1,000 more George Floyds to die, and leadership with an iron will who will never bend to media pressure.

I do not care about inner city crime very much. But aggressively and boldly fighting black crime would benefit black people, specifically single mothers who live in fear and terror of their neighbors. I used to work with those women, and they constantly complained about how the police never came when they called, the police didn’t care, the police didn’t do anything.

Ironically, the people who would be most appreciative would be those who benefit least: suburban whites. White supremacist policing would hurt the equity of suburban whites, because it would encourage people to abandon the suburbs and move back into the cities.

Counter-Point:

Ideally, we would nationalize the welfare system, and limit welfare in cities, and redirect it to rural areas. This would cause an exodus of criminals out of highly productive areas into low productivity areas, thus reducing the cost of crime. No additional policing would be required.

37. It’s possible to model two situations:

1. Leftists open the borders, bringing in innovators, but they reduce GDP growth through bad policies.

2. Right-wingers close the borders, shutting out innovators, but increase GDP growth through good policies.

In this way, I am skeptical that we should only look at GDP growth as a measure of innovative potential. After all, the Soviets got to space. I’d rather we have Soviet-style communism with a focus on research and development of biological technology, if the alternative is a state which shuts out human capital while decreasing entitlements.