Don't you find the term "White Genocide" hilarious regarding immigration in the UK/Europe etc?

I find it remarkable that a number of people clamour about "White genocide" and claim that someone or something (from maybe Zionists to all non-white people in general to "the Elite") is attempting to eradicate "the White Race". This is most especially heard in the UK and Europe (I can't say much about the US as America is the land of immigrant descendants - which include Europeans themselves and the indigenous in America have been pushed away).

And yet, in the UK, "white people" (say white Britons for example) make up over 90% of the British population. So where exactly is the genocide? Do people not understand the meaning of the word "genocide"? A genocide occurred in Rwanda; in Armenia; under Adolf Hitler. The last time I checked, I don't recall the systematic destruction of white people or white Brits. I don't recall Newport, Wales being bombed to oblivion by the Non-White Alliance or Newbury, Berkshire being overrun by armies of the Non-White Alliance or non-white people across the planet calling for the destruction of all White people and praising the efforts of the Non-White Alliance in their bombardment of Britain in an effort to ensure the systematic destruction of White Brits and the undertaking of deadly concentration camps for White Brits.**

So what do you have to say about this?

**DISCLAIMER: The author of this post emphasises that a Non-White Alliance does not actually exist and there are therefore no bombings in Britain being undertaken by said entity. There also exists no united voice of non-white people just as there exists no united voice of white people or no united voice of humans. This further serves to show that the term "genocide" is not only inappropriate but is wholly ridiculous in attempting to prove the case for "White genocide" in Britain and Europe.

reply to post by HomoSapiensSapiens


really, just ignore the few bleating folk here who cry that it isnt as acceptable to join the NF (EDL/BNP nowadays) as it was in the 70's (etc, or that some criminal on the bill was, gosh, white and not black). anyone can access the internet, even those who would not say that kind of swill to someone's face, despite their protestations to the contrary.
pay them no heed.

reply to post by HomoSapiensSapiens


I've never heard of a white genocide before, but here are a couple of links that are related to your post.

Where have London's white British gone?

and from the blog...

Why have the white British left London?

Because of the Globalist attempt to create a slave, unstable force in the Colonial states, whites are being demonized through propaganda etc. But make no mistake, it is not exclusively a white genocide program, it is a human genocide.

I'll preface this with a stern and honest disclaimer: I do NOT subscribe to the beliefs I am about to discuss. They are only being posted as a communication of things I have read, heard, or seen in media.

I believe this argument comes from a standpoint of mixed marriage. While I do not live in England, I do live in the southern United States - an environment that is decades behind much of the rest of the world in racial issues. And that is the common argument that seems to be made here. That there is some sort of highly organized plan to breed the white man out of existence. In these parts even television shows are pointed at as proof. Any representation of a brown, yellow, red, or black man in ANY role but subservient, seems to illicit these claims.

My personal POV is that race is largely an illusion anyway. Just a few genes out of the myriad of genes in a human are responsible for every single thing that might dictate "race"

Genocide means murder of a race. The white race is not being murdered in the UK. Anyone who goes about this are white nationalists and are racist.

White people are still the majority in all predominately white countries anyway.

I'm sure many of them will flock to this thread. ATS attracts a lot of stormfront members.

reply to post by Knobby


Isn't London like one of the capitals of the world? It'd be concerning if it wasn't diverse, no?

reply to post by Hefficide


"Mixed marriages" - was is this, the 50s? In any case, funnily enough, regarding mixed marriages, there were actually some arguments that they should be encouraged as they'll ensure less pure non-white people rather than less white people.

I beg to differ on your mentioning of subservient roles and whatnot. A diverse number of people from diverse skin colours play a diverse amount of roles. For example, in the upcoming film "Olympus has fallen", the President of the United States is white. In another upcoming film "White House Down" the President is black. I don't think we can take media and films to be representative and reflective of all of society.

reply to post by Baguul


A human genocide? Therefore, what should preclude is that a non-human is committing the genocide, right? Where are these non-humans? Who are they?

reply to post by Knobby


I don't understand the issue of this. Most American cities are about 30-50% white and the rest percentage are minorities.

reply to post by Knobby


What's more that seems to be economic and social, rather than racial (which would be absurd in itself, otherwise humanity would be regressing back to the early 20th century and whatnot).

What's more, whilst the white population of London has supposedly decreased, the overall white population of the UK has increased.

What white genocide? All that is happened in the last 50 years is people of various mixed ethnicities have left their country of origin and have settled in traditional white countries. It's true you may see less white people around especially if you live in less affluent suburbs, but there is no genocide. That is total B.S.
Here in Melbourne we have a melting pot of many different cultures, we have had various waves of immigrants and naturally early days of assimilation has been tough.
After the 2nd world war we had many Italians and Greeks settle here, they all went into business especially the food industry which is why we have the great variety of eateries.
In the 50's there was a large influx of British, mostly white. The 70's was the Vietnamese who came here and settled.
Later we had eastern Europeans and more recently Africans and Indians, so if you want to call the intermingling of races genocide you are obviously a racist and a moron.
All it really is, is that borders have opened up and people from poorer countries are getting a shot at a better life and I am all for it.

reply to post by HomoSapiensSapiens


You seem to have some issue with white people, based on your posting history. Why is that? The truth of the matter is that, at least in the U.S., the white male is at more of a disadvantage than at any point in american history. That makes people take notice, like it or not.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

, at least in the U.S., the white male is at more of a disadvantage than at any point in american history.

Ummm... How?

Because other races and women aren't legally oppressed ?



Such a disadvantage....

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

, at least in the U.S., the white male is at more of a disadvantage than at any point in american history.

Ummm... How?

Because the history of the US is white-dominated. Now, more than ever, minorities and women have a lot of power in this country. I can see that you missed my point. I am not saying the white male is at a huge disadvantage. I am saying that the white male is at more of a disadvantage than ever before in this country.

Im not saying its wrong. Im just stating that its true.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


What you really mean is there is more equality now than there ever was before. That is true. Blacks have more rights than say 50 years ago as do women. So saying that whites males are less advantaged than in the past which is fine. People of all races and genders should have equal rights, we all come into this earth the same way.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Nobody is saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing, but you do understand how dynamic history is right? You do understand how different cultures and countries and people rise and fall right? For example, once upon a time, Africa and the Middle East were the centre of the world when Europe and America and whatnot were empty wastelands. This is how history goes. At one point, certain groups of people are in a better position, at other points in time, other people are in better positions. In many decades to come, the shift of global perspective and centre of power will be Asia and Africa - you don't really think that current European and American powers will last forever in strength and domination do you? History shows that power changes constantly.

For example, European and America economies are slowly growing, sometimes to the point of stagnation (especially after recent economic crises) and yet, economies of African and Asian countries (contrary to the media image of poor children walking aimlessly about) are growing exponentially (and could be better if not for corruption). Any historian, all things being equal, would confidently predict how the world will look like in the decades ahead.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


White men aren't at a disadvantage... They are still on top, they hold the most wealth, hold the most political leadership, have the better jobs, etc.

I wouldn't call the gradual rise of societal equality for women and minorities as putting white men at a disadvantage. That makes it sound like someone is oppressing them.

Originally posted by kudegras
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

What you really mean is there is more equality now than there ever was before. That is true. Blacks have more rights than say 50 years ago as do women. So saying that whites males are less advantaged than in the past which is fine. People of all races and genders should have equal rights, we all come into this earth the same way.

I agree 100%. The thing I would caution, though, is that there are some disadvantages to being white, now. There are no programs out there that give gov't kickbacks for hiring white males. Given the choice between a white male and a minority or a female with similar skillsets, most employers will choose the minority or the female now.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

White men aren't at a disadvantage... They are still on top, they hold the most wealth, hold the most political leadership, have the better jobs, etc.

I wouldn't call the gradual rise of societal equality for women and minorities as puttying white men at a disadvantage.

Youre still misinterpreting. I said they are at more of a disadvantage than ever before. Not That they are at a giant disadvantage.