My Thoughts White Genocide

8293682898_2161c61ecb_zBlue eyed Pashtun Afghan


Europe Map


Anglosphere countries which is to say English speaking countries and western European countries have been since the 1950s experienced a large wave of immigration from almost every corner of the planet. This large and unprecedented in human history migration is of great concern to me and many others. Most of these immigrants are non-white though some are white, but non Western white such as Eastern Europeans and Iberians (I consider Spain and Portugal as well as Latin America to be outside of the west due to significant cultural differences). In my view what is at stake isn’t the entire white race per say but rather western white people as well as Italian people. Eastern Europe and the Iberian peninsula haven’t been as effected by immigration due to various historical conditions such as lower levels of economic development. What is at stake is the nations of the US, Canada, Italy, New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, France, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands and Great Britain.

Non Western Europeans

I will start by saying that Eastern Europe as well as Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries have a rich and beautiful culture. That said Eastern Europeans and Iberians aren’t as accomplished as Northern and Western Europeans. Most Eastern European countries are substantially less developed than western European countries and are comparable to non European countries in terms of economic development levels, this is also true of majority white Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries. Even though Eastern European and Iberian people are white they aren’t the same as Western Europeans and culturally they will more strongly identity with their own cultures than with other Europeans. A Pole in Britain is still a Pole, an Albanian in Italy is still Albanian, and a Cuban Spaniard or white Hispanic in America is still a Cuban or Hispanic due to homeland cultural ties. Likewise Western Europeans in Eastern Europe still more strongly identity with Western Europe. Germans in the former Soviet Union still mostly hold to German culture. Thus ‘white people’ aren’t not a unified group of people and Eastern Europeans and Iberians are just as much a part of the demographic displacement of Western Europeans as are the various non white people and in general will support enhanced levels immigration if only for their own personal benefit.

Non European White People

Whiteness also exists outside of European people. There are non-Europeans who possess In their genes Caucasian skulls, pale skin, colored eyes and red and blonde hair. Non Euro whites can still be found Iin the middle East, Central Asia and Mediterranean (Levant and North Africa). The genetic traits that make someone ‘white’ can be found in Iranian people as well as Caucasus people (not all Iranic people are white there is a variety of Iranian people with different phenotypes, but most are). Even if every single European died out the genetic traits for whiteness would still exist (though to a greatly reduced extent). Non European whites are even less advanced and culturally more distinct than Eastern European and Iberian whites and thus even more alien to us.

So the goal in my view isn’t even mere genetic preservation of ‘white people’ as white people will continue to exist outside of the Anglosphere, western Europe and Europe. The goal is instead to preserve Western European people who are the most accomplished white people that exist and the ones most in danger of disappearing due to immigration. Whether you consider Northern Europeans to be Nordic, Celtic or Germanic, they are the ones needing to be preserved. The preservation of Western whites was why the 1924 immigration act was passed and why we must fight today, it kept America white but also Western European as well. It would be a great shame if western whites were to disappear as their culture, nations, and contributions would disappear with them. Finally I don’t think that this great migration wave is set in stone, it will be difficult to change it but it didn’t always exist so it can be not to exist again.

The Myth Of Diversity and Multiculturalism

I should note my perspective is based on United States and North American perspective. Multiculturalism is formally defined as “the co-existence of diverse cultures, where culture includes racial, religious, or cultural groups and is manifested in customary behaviours, cultural assumptions and values, patterns of thinking, and communicative styles.” 1. Many promote diversity as means of enriching the cultural fabric of either an institution or a nation. Diversity doesn’t really end up as meaning multiple cultures existing together, instead it means that people immigrate to a nation and adopt the nation’s language and culture. If a group of people doesn’t adopt a nation’s language and culture than it means separating one self from others. In other words for separate cultures it means assimilate and adopt the dominant culture or remain isolated from society.

The Irish are a perfect while on the whole are economically a very successful group of people in North America, they have however lost much of their cultural identity. Irish communities have disappeared and so too has much of the Irish culture in the new world. The Irish really didn’t obtain economic success until they decided to give up their culture in favor the dominant Anglo-Saxon cultures in Canada and the US. Immigrants in Latin American countries went through a similar process, many ‘Hispanics’ actually have ancestors who are from parts of outside of Spain but simply speak the Spanish language because it is dominant. Iranians while they still have Ethnic enclaves, will probably face a similar process by which whatever culture they have is replaced by the dominant English speaking or the dominant culture of other countries they immigrate to.

Even though Asian immigrants are successful economically they face isolation because they refuse to merge with the countries they are be it non-Asian countries or other Asian countries. Asians will remain outcasts or they will assimilate.

Image Credit: Wikipedia

In short immigration and assimilation does not truly create diversity in culture, what it creates is a group of people adopting the dominant culture and loosing their own. In short merging cultures together reduces the number of people in a given culture and further homogenizes cultures. Immigration and assimilation truly means less diversity. Merging people together creates a cycle of join the dominant culture or die.



Environmentalism As Controlled Opposition


The environmental movement or “green movement” as it is often called is a movement that arose from the 1960s to 1970s that was a response to the environmental problems of the currently existing society. This movement which has received both praise and scorn is a controlled response to society as it is currently designed and configured. One of the groups of people who funded the environmental movement is the Rockefeller family. The Rockefellers created the modern oil and natural gas industry, so why would such a group of people benefit from the environmental movement? A group of people such as them benefit from such a movement because it enables them to control the movement and therefore control the dialog of the movement and control the direction of its solutions.


From the 1900s – Today cars, trucks, buses and airplanes throughout the world replaced traditional railroads and electrified street railways. During the 20th century the population of the globe expanded 10x along side various mass migrations. Most population growth was not evenly distributed and happened primarily in areas which already had large numbers of people in the first place and most people migrated to already populated areas. The effect of putting people in already populated metropolitan was metros expanding outward leading to sub-urbanization and urban sprawl. During the 20th century coal use expanded rapidly displacing water based power sources leading to various environmental problems such as pollution of various kinds and the land usage effects of mining. While many of these fore mentioned changes did bring positive outcomes such as increased economic well being, these things also brought a host of environmental problems which brought to us the environmental movement. These things also lead to cultures being decadent and consumeristic. The environmental movement however didn’t solve any of these problems or significantly reduce them they simply curbed them.

Fossil Fuel Use

What has been the environmentalist response to pollution and land use problems imposed by coal, oil and gas burning? The environmentalist response has been a combination of regulation and taxation. Regulation, taxation and reduced consumption helps reduce the effects of fossil fuel use but preserves fossil use and therefore such measures pose no threat to big business. A true solution to problems of fossil fuel use would be a conversion to new sources of energy and replacing cars, trucks, buses and airplanes with different forms of transportation such as Maglevs, Hovertrains, or Personal Rapid Transport. Restricting fossil fuel use fundamentally won’t do away with it and restrictions impose economic costs on people leading people to believe that society as it currently exists must be perpetuated to avoid said economic costs.

Overpopulation and Urban Sprawl

Many environmentalists will talk about overpopulation until they are blue in the face and some will talk about urban sprawl. What do environmentalists do? They push for “smart growth” which pushes people into already populated areas which will inevitably lead to expansion of said areas leading to the dread urban sprawl. The real solution to these described problems would be to build metropolitan areas with more reasonable scale without the need for constant expansion and on a global level we need to stabilize global population and reduce the need for migrations.

As you can see in both cases the environmentalist “solutions” don’t actually solve the fore mentioned problems and instead modify them. Big businesses therefore benefit from the environmental movement, because the environmental movement poses no challenges to them. What we need is not to modify society as it is currently designed, but to replace it and replace what the outcomes of the 20th century. We need more reasonable scale metropolitan areas, we need better forms of energy and we need different and better forms of transportation. In short society needs to be redesigned, not taxed and regulated more.





Refuting The Land Value Tax


Very few attempts are made at challenging the Land Value Tax and it’s strong following and very few of these challenges are very good challenges. These considered I seek to point out the flaws a Land Value Tax would create and maybe by pointing out these flaws they can be corrected. In fact if everyone jumps on it then I could see several disastrous effects happening.

It Taxes Land Ownership Not Landlordism

A Land Value Tax simply taxes land itself not the act of being a land lord. Simply owning land doesn’t make one a land lord. Similar to how courts often presume guilt a Land Value Tax presumes landlordism.

A Land Value Tax Encourages Landlordism

If one imposes a cost on any kind of activity the act of performing that activity becomes more expensive, land is not magical in this regard. A Land Value Tax increases the cost of Land Ownership and therefore will place barriers to ownership. Those who can best afford to pay the Land Value Tax will be land lords and they will have no incentive to de-consolidate land ownership because of this. If you want less consolidated land ownership then you should encourage it not discourage it.

It Will Encourage Urban Sprawl

A Land Value Tax being a single tax to replace all other taxes would replace the Gas Tax. Replacing the Gas Tax makes driving effectively free. By having free driving you have increased driving. Increased traffic as a result of increased driving will make Urban areas less attractive. A Land Value Tax also addresses urban sprawl in the wrong way. In terms of land policy most urban sprawl is caused by land use regulations such as euclidean zoning,  parking requirements, and the various other requirements that local governments impose.

A Land Value Tax Subsidizes Imports

Productive Export oriented businesses tend to be land intensive, because of this a Land Value Tax would be a large burden upon such businesses. Georgists also support “free trade” which means free importing with no tariffs. Untaxed foreign made items means that domestic industry would have to be taxed more in order to make up for this.

A Land Value Tax Hurts Farmers

Farms because they are land intensive would pay a heavy burden under a Land Value Tax system. Land is the single largest asset a farm has. Farm land due to its special application and scarcity tends to be highly valuable. Urban land really isn’t more valuable than rural land especially not farm land. As I point out a Land Value Tax would encourage urban sprawl which would mean less land available to farming. Most voters tend to be urban voters and would therefore be subsidized by rural residents. In many tax codes you find either a property tax deduction or exemption for farmers because farmers view it as an undue burden upon them.

In my view the Land Value Tax tries to address real problems but it goes about it in the wrong way. I should be clear I don’t advocate then system we have today, but the system of both state and local property taxation and federal income taxation have roots in Georgism and Georgist movements. Effectively we would be exchanging one Georgist tax for another. All that said I hope this article spurs debate about the topic of the Land Value Tax and encourages alternative solutions.