White Genocide

= Introduction =

White Genocide is the ongoing intentional dilution and displacement of the White population globally. It is accomplished through a combination of many different continuous policies, laws, denial of indigenous status anywhere in the world, conditioning and racial guilt indoctrination, miscegenation propaganda, feminism and a host of other things. It encompasses every White country, with those few that resist under increasing pressure to allow their demographics to get irrevocably changed through an unending supply of foreigners. Notable countries attempting to resist international pressure are Hungary{{footnote}} https://www.politico.eu/article/hungary-fined-200-million-breaking-eu-migration-unprecedented-serious-asylum-rules-european-court-justice-viktor-orban/{{/footnote}} and Poland.{{footnote}} https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/08/poland-eu-migration-summit-asylum-luxembourg-talks{{/footnote}}

4

5

6

== Demographics of the West ==

7

8

[[image:1745084423594-380.png||height="427" width="201"]][[image:1745084813423-993.png||data-xwiki-image-style-alignment="end" height="333" width="958"]]

= Demographics =

Western countries have the lowest overall fertility of any region in the world.{{footnote}} https://population.un.org/wpp/{{/footnote}} Although they are outdone by some individual exceptions, notably East Asian countries, Whites are the only major racial group that is under imminent threat of disappearance. This is due to the mass migration that has been forced on White countries, which has placed them in a race against time to decide on a course of action whilst they still have the political means to do so. By the year 2100, almost every formerly White majority country will lose it's historical ethnic majority status. For the first time in history, nations will have allowed themselves to be demographically overtaken by a foreign population without any resistance. Furthermore, it will be the first time a government has forced its citizens to accept such a takeover without allowing them to put forth any such resistance, actively preventing them from doing so even.

14

15

16

[[https:~~/~~/archive.org/embed/you-will-have-no-place-to-run.-islam-is-the-broom-of-israel.-rabbi-rav-touitou>>https://archive.org/embed/you-will-have-no-place-to-run.-islam-is-the-broom-of-israel.-rabbi-rav-touitou]]

17

18

{{video url="https://youtu.be/QiQv-19e0zQ?si=KWCFx0JEhIIZqSOC" width="50%"/}}

19

20

21

[[The Morgenthau Plan>>attach:The Morgenthau Plan.mp4]]

#set($attachments = $doc.getAttachmentList())

27

28

29

#foreach($attachment in $attachments)

30

#if($attachment.filename.endsWith(".jpg") || $attachment.filename.endsWith(".png") || $attachment.filename.endsWith(".webp"))

31

image:$attachment.filename

#end

#end

White Erasure

=== ##Government sponsored study on the problem of Whites and blacks not mixing interracially in marriages enough. This study outlines the prevalent and stubborn issue of Whites refusing to racially mix, and the possible solutions to it.## ===

40

41

{{expandable summary="Study: Who Marries Whom? The Role of Segregation by Race and Class"}}

42

**Source:** *U.S. Census Bureau Working Paper*

43

**Date of Publication:** *June 2024*

44

**Author(s):** *Benjamin Goldman, Jamie Gracie, Sonya R. Porter*

45

**Title:** *"Who Marries Whom? The Role of Segregation by Race and Class"*

46

**DOI:** [Link to Source](https://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/series/ces-wp.html)

47

**Subject Matter:** *Marriage, Race, Class, Residential Segregation, Intergenerational Mobility*

48

49

50

1. **General Observations:**

51

- Only 0.5% of White individuals married a Black spouse.

52

- Only 3.1% of people from high-income families married someone from a low-income family.

53

- 68% of married couples lived within 50 census tracts of each other five years before marriage.

54

55

2. **Subgroup Analysis:**

56

- 19% of individuals from high-income families married someone from a similar high-income background.

57

- Among Black individuals, only 2.1% had a White spouse by age 30.

58

59

3. **Other Significant Data Points:**

60

- The marriage probability drops steeply with geographic distance.

61

- Residential segregation substantially impacts interclass marriage but has minimal impact on interracial marriage.

1. **Primary Observations:**

66

- Interclass marriage is significantly influenced by exposure in residential neighborhoods.

67

- Interracial marriage shows minimal sensitivity to changes in residential exposure.

68

69

2. **Subgroup Trends:**

70

- Small increases in racial integration produce measurable but limited increases in interracial marriages.

71

- Residential moves that desegregate neighborhoods show significant effects on interclass marriage rates but almost no effect on interracial marriage rates.

72

73

3. **Specific Case Analysis:**

74

- Eliminating distance barriers entirely would increase interclass marriage rates by 41% but would only increase interracial marriage rates by about 6%.

75

- The Gautreaux Project, a real-world desegregation initiative, showed similar limited impacts on interracial marriage rates.

1. **Strengths of the Study:**

80

- Robust use of U.S. Census and tax data covering a massive sample size.

81

- Methodologically strong with a spatial model capturing general equilibrium impacts.

82

- Careful attention to isolating causality using sex ratio variations.

83

84

2. **Limitations of the Study:**

85

- Focuses exclusively on White-Black marriage, largely ignoring other racial pairings.

86

- Does not fully explore cultural, ideological, or media-driven factors that may independently influence marriage patterns beyond exposure.

87

- Relies on tax data, which may underreport non-marital unions and cohabitation.

88

89

3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**

90

- Broaden the racial analysis beyond just White and Black categories.

91

- Investigate the impact of media saturation and social programming aimed at increasing interracial marriage rates, particularly those that target White women.

92

- Examine the ideological pressure placed on White populations to pursue or normalize interracial relationships as a "progressive" social duty.

- This study provides direct empirical evidence that **physical desegregation alone does little to change entrenched racial marriage patterns.**

97

- The persistent racial homophily in marriage directly contradicts the **mainstream narrative pushed by modern media and DEI campaigns that social exposure will naturally lead to increased racial mixing.**

98

- From a pro-White perspective, the study undermines the ideological push to engineer higher interracial mixing rates through forced proximity, media conditioning, and cultural normalization.

99

- The finding suggests that **deep-seated in-group preferences persist despite decades of aggressive integrationist policy and media efforts**—an important counterpoint to the anti-White agenda frequently present in modern advertising and political rhetoric.

1. Investigate whether **media-driven promotions of interracial relationships, particularly Black male/White female pairings, have measurable impacts on real-world marriage rates.**

104

2. Analyze **other marriage patterns (e.g., Hispanic-White, Asian-White)** to see if similar exposure resistance holds across other racial groups or if specific groups are more affected by cultural programming.

105

3. Explore whether **institutional pressure and educational framing contribute to racial self-selection behaviors, particularly within White populations.**

[[Download Full Study>>attach:Who_marries_whom.pdf]]

=== ##Former Jewish Director of National Affairs, Stephen Steinlight, discussing how the changing demographics of America are occurring too quickly. Not because this is a bad thing for the country, but it risks awakening the former White majority.## ===

115

116

{{expandable summary="Study: The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing Demography"}}

117

**Source:** *Center for Immigration Studies*

118

**Date of Publication:** *October 2001*

119

**Author(s):** *Stephen Steinlight*

120

**Title:** *"The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing Demography: Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration Policy"*

121

**DOI:** Unavailable

122

**Subject Matter:** *Immigration, Demographics, Jewish Political Interests, Assimilation*

123

124

125

1. **General Observations:**

126

- By the 2000 census, Mexican immigration had surged from fewer than 800,000 in 1970 to nearly 9 million.

127

- Muslims in the U.S. estimated between 2.5 to 6 million, with political activity rapidly increasing.

128

- The Hispanic/Caribbean share of 1990s U.S. immigration was approximately 55%.

129

130

2. **Subgroup Analysis:**

131

- The Jewish community was described as maintaining high political influence despite declining fertility and increasing intermarriage.

132

- Jewish organizations often supported large-scale immigration publicly, despite internal unease.

133

134

3. **Other Significant Data Points:**

135

- The author predicts a long-term decline in Jewish political power due to rising Latino and Muslim demographics.

136

- Jewish organizations were heavily involved in coalitions promoting immigration, even when the grassroots Jewish population was increasingly skeptical.

1. **Primary Observations:**

141

- Unchecked mass immigration is presented as a potential long-term threat to Jewish political influence and cultural security in America.

142

- Jewish leadership was criticized for ignoring the potential consequences of demographic shifts.

143

144

2. **Subgroup Trends:**

145

- Jewish grassroots sentiment was already diverging from leadership’s pro-immigration advocacy.

146

- The rise of Islamism was explicitly identified as a security threat to Jewish interests.

147

148

3. **Specific Case Analysis:**

149

- Jewish leadership was described as supporting open immigration out of historical habit, guilt over U.S. policies in the 1920s, and fear of returning nativist sentiment.

150

- Latino immigration, specifically Mexican, was seen as politically transformative with limited alignment to Jewish interests.

1. **Pro-White Observations:**

155

- The author’s concerns inadvertently validate pro-White critiques: mass immigration reshapes demographics to the detriment of the existing ethnic majority.

156

- The explicit Jewish focus on maintaining group power while simultaneously promoting diversity for the host society reveals an asymmetrical racial strategy.

157

158

2. **Pro-White Concerns:**

159

- The double standard: Jewish organizations openly pursue ethnic self-preservation while promoting policies that erode the ethnic self-preservation of Whites.

160

- The selective concern over Muslim immigration, while continuing to advocate for diversity elsewhere, suggests a targeted rather than universally principled opposition to demographic change.

161

162

3. **Potential Racial Bias:**

163

- Jewish anxieties over declining group influence mirror the exact same concerns often labeled “racist” when voiced by Whites.

164

- The study demonstrates that when other groups face demographic decline, it is framed as a problem to be mitigated, but when Whites face decline, it is often framed as desirable progress.

- This study is critical for understanding the **ethnic double standards in demographic politics.**

169

- It reveals that **ethnic self-interest is normalized for some groups but pathologized for Whites.**

170

- The Jewish community’s historical support for immigration is not universalist—it is self-protective, with limits when their group power is threatened.

171

- The study directly supports critiques of modern immigration policy as a **targeted demographic strategy** rather than a purely humanitarian movement.

172

173

174

{{expandable summary="🔍 Other Wiki Pages That Should Reference This Study"}}

175

1. [[The Great Replacement>>path:/bin/view/Main%20Categories/White%20Decline/The%20Great%20Replacement/]]

176

2. [[Immigration>>path:/bin/view/Main%20Categories/Immigration%20and%20Politics/Immigration/]]

177

3. [[Racial Demographics>>path:/bin/view/Main%20Categories/Race/Racial%20Demographics/]]

178

4. [[Media Bias>>path:/bin/view/Main%20Categories/Media%2C%20Propaganda%2C%20and%20Conditioning/Media%20Bias/]]

179

5. [[Discrimination Against White People>>path:/bin/view/Main%20Categories/Discrimination/Discrimination%20Against%20White%20People/]]

180

6. [[Jewish Power and Influence>>path:/bin/view/Main%20Categories/Jews/Jewish%20Power%20and%20Influence/]]

181

7. [[Intermarriage and Ethnic Exclusivity>>path:/bin/view/Main%20Categories/Jews/Intermarriage%20and%20Ethnic%20Exclusivity/]]

182

8. [[Jewish Influence on Foreign Affairs>>path:/bin/view/Main%20Categories/Jews/Jewish%20Influence%20on%20Foreign%20Affairs/]]

183

9. [[Miscegenation>>path:/bin/view/Main%20Categories/Dating%20%26%20Social%20Media/Miscegenation/]]

184

10. [[Ethnic Double Standards in Demographic Policy>>path:/bin/view/Main%20Categories/Ethnic%20Double%20Standards%20in%20Demographic%20Policy/]] (Suggested New Page)

[[Download Full Study>>attach:Steinlight - The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing Demography.pdf]]

193

194

195