Serbian government bans anti-mass immigration protests, and plans ahead for mass immigration


Nebojsa Stefanovic, Serbia’s Interior Minister said protesters who are concerned about “an EU plan” to settle thousands of illegal immigrants into the country, will not be allowed to voice their concerns in a protest march on Monday, 31st of August.

We will not allow the expression of intolerance and hatred to be something that is characteristic of Serbiasaid Stefanovic.

The Ministry of Interior will not allow any meetings against migrants and people passing through Serbia, who were forced to do so because of difficult conditions or war in their country.

Meanwhile, another Serbian government official has suggested that illegal immigrants be encouraged to stay in Serbia.

We should consider offering them [illegal immigrants] to stay in parts of Serbia that are empty“, Brankica Jankovic, Serbia’s Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, said on Serbian TV.

A selection should be made, a detailed security screening.

Jankovic also remarked on the protest being cancelled:

Intolerance, xenophobia and racism must be broadly condemned by all relevant factors in Serbia, not only by individuals,” she said.

What you will notice is that they never say WHY what you say is wrong; they just scream words at you and try to stop you from talking – just like Chancellor Angela Merkel has recently tried to do to protesters in Germany.

In Europe, there are a quite a few politicians who hate the native population (White people), and are very vocal in their demands to turn Europe into a mix of generic third-world countries.

These anti-Whites want as many immigrants as possible – legal and illegal, and to get the illegal immigrants they are just “repackaging” them as refugees who are fleeing a war.

But this is silly – people who pass through several safe countries so they can go to a rich country, are clearly not genuine refugees.

This agenda to make Europe more “diverse” (and also, America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), is all about getting rid of White areas. According to international law, that is White Genocide.


Mass immigration: Merkel booed by Germans, praised by Obama


Decisions made by Angela Merkel’s government has caused outrage amongst many Germans, who have turned to rioting and burning down illegal immigrant housing, after the tens of thousands taking part in the PEGIDA protests were ignored.

Despite being recently booed by protesters in the town of Heidenau, near Dresden, President Obama praised Merkel in a phone conversation.

A White House statement said that Obama especially praised her decision to open Germany’s borders to all Syrians who claim to be refugees.

Merkel’s government has referred to the protesters as “neo-Nazis“, “xenophobes“, “racists“, “shameful and repulsive“, and “alcohol-fueled loudmouths” – just to name a few – but Markus Ulbig, the Interior Minister for Saxony, warned against screaming labels.

We cannot label 10,000 people as right-wing extremists. That creates more problems than it solves“ he said.

Meanwhile, the protesters had just one name for Merkel; they held up signs with “Traitor” written on them.

Merkel responded to these protesters saying “There is no tolerance for those people who question the dignity of others, no tolerance for those who are not willing to help where legal and human help is required.

In Germany we are starting to see the anti-White leaders turn away from the carrot method, and move on to the stick method.

These anti-Whites used to say how lovely it was to be a “diverse” society. Now they’re basically ordering us to do what they say.

Not a single vote to date has taken place which asked us average Joes if we wanted all this “diversity” and “multiculturalism”.

This agenda has been forced on us, and it is turning us into a minority in our own countries. It is nothing more than White genocide.


German government opens borders to all Syrians


The German government has flung open Germany’s borders to any and all Syrians, regardless of whether they claim to be asylum seekers.

A statement from the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees said thatGermany will become the member state responsible for processing their claims.

This new diktat means Syrians will no longer have their asylum cases reviewed to see if they are genuine refugees; they will be let in regardless.

Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President, François Hollande, have spoken in Berlin, and are speaking about again trying to force all EU countries to take in a quota of illegal immigrants.

Merkel’s spokesman said that “Germany is a compassionate country and will not allow refugees to be met here by hateful slogans or alcohol-fueled loudmouths,” and said they should be treated with “dignity and respect.

Germany predicts that it will be flooded with over 800,000 illegal immigrants this year

There are real Syrian refugees, and the crucial point here is that they all went to neighboring countries – Jordan, mostly. There are another kind of Syrian “refugees” who travel through many safe countries on their way to Germany, Sweden, or Britain. They are simply economic illegal immigrants, like all the others, because they pass through many safe countries.

EU leaders know this, but they still call them “refugees” because it makes the European majority less against them flooding into Europe.

Most – if not all – EU leaders are anti-White, and they want to make Europe more “diverse”, or in other words, less White.

These people are supposed to have intimate knowledge of the law, but they seem blissfully unaware that their agenda is legally – White genocide.


Anti-Whites upset by stagnation of mixed-race couples in Canada


The Vancouver Sun has written an article about how mixed-race couples are stagnating in Canada, with very little increase.

Ethnically mixed couples — involving whites, blacks, Japanese, Hispanics, Chinese, South Asians or others — were heralded not long ago as the wave of a tolerant, open, non-racist future.” wrote the Vancouver Sun.

But three cultural trends are shaking up this utopian dream, which places inter-ethnic couples at the vanguard of cultural fusion.

The first shift is demographic. Canadian statisticians have documented how the growth of ethnic groups in the Western world is actually making inter-ethnic couples less likely in major cities.

Research by the University of Victoria confirms this statement – the larger an ethnic group becomes, the less likely its people are to date outside their group.

The phrase “hoist by their own petard” springs to mind here. The anti-Whites were so eager to mix all the “racism” out of us evil White plebs, that they opened our borders and persistently flooded us with the third world. Now this has backfired on them, because a lot of these non-White immigrants have more opportunity to date within their own group.

Secondly,” the Vancouver Sun continues, “many of the countries with traditional cultures that produce immigrants to the West remain resistant to ethnic intermarriage, often because of concerns about offsprings’ religious identities.

Again, their own agenda has backfired on them – they imported a lot of Muslim immigrants into traditionally, White Christian countries, and are surprised this creates conflict.

Thirdly, some race activists and social scientists are criticizing what they call the ‘brownwashing’ of the population, arguing a mixed-union revolution is mostly sought by white liberals.

Brian Bailey, and educational consultant, told the Vancouver Sun that “In a perfect world, almost every marriage would be a mixed one, in order to eliminate the scourge of racism…

He said mixed-race societies would “take care of global warfare.

Here at White Genocide Project, we offer an alternative view: the only reason why Canada must become mixed race (along with America, Australia, New Zealand, and the whole of Europe), is purely because it’s full of White people and our own leaders have decided that we no longer have the right to exist.

This is White genocide. We are not saying that mixed-race couples equals White genocide – though that is a product of the agenda.

What we are saying is that flooding White countries with millions of non-White immigrants, and then trying to “diversify” all the White suburbs and towns is genocide.

When you single out and label White areas as “too White” and “not diverse”, that is a clear violation of the UN’s genocide conventions; simply put, it is White genocide.


German politician scorns Europe for not taking illegal immigrants


Apart from Austria, Germany, and Sweden, most European countries are standing their ground against mass immigration demands from anti-White pressure groups.

Some European countries, like Estonia and Slovakia, have been pressured by EU leaders into taking small numbers of illegal immigrants claiming to be refugees, but they refuse to accept massive amounts.

German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel scorned the rest of Europe for this, saying it was a “huge disgrace” on Germany’s ARD T.V. channel.

I find it a huge disgrace when the majority of member states say that’s got nothing to do with us” he said.

Returning to a Europe without open borders will have catastrophic economic, political, and cultural consequences.

Gabriel says Germany will be able to cope with the 800,000 illegal immigrants expected to enter the country this year, but says it won’t be able to “indefinitely“.

Even the pro-mass immigration politicians are talking about these illegal immigrants as if they are a burden to the country they are in, but just years ago those same politicians would tell us that mass immigration was only a benefit to the economy.

This was simply just a lie they cooked up to open the borders to as many Africans and Muslims as possible. Now that they’ve got exactly what they wanted, they demand that others take a portion of the responsibility.

The fact is, many of these anti-White politicians and leaders are too caught up in their “diversity” fantasy world to see that a White Genocide is being carried out by their hands.

In addition to flooding majority White countries with millions of non-White immigrants, both legal and illegal, they are also pushing for “diversity” in White suburbs and towns, in order to eliminate us as the majority group.

Oh, they do agree that their agenda is getting rid of White people, but they just disagree that it is genocide. Well, according to the UN Genocide conventions, that is exactly what it is.


Finnish politician declares war on ‘multiculturalism’, but Prime Minister wants an ‘international country’


Olli Immonen, a Finnish member of parliament and a Finns Party politician, said he would “fight [multiculturalism] until the end for our homeland.

Posting on Facebook, Immonen said he was “dreaming of a strong, brave nation that will defeat this nightmare called multiculturalism. This ugly bubble that our enemies live in, will soon enough burst into a million little pieces.

Our lives are entwined in a very harsh times,” he said. “These are the days, that will forever leave a mark on our nations future. I have strong belief in my fellow fighters. We will fight until the end for our homeland and one true Finnish nation. The victory will be ours.

The Finns Party won nearly 18% percent of the vote in the April elections, making it the second biggest party in parliament, and making it a part of Finland’s coalition government.

Finnish Prime Minister Juha Sipilä, responded to Immonen’s comments on Twitter.

I cannot accept Immonen’s remarks,” he said. “I want to develop Finland as an open, linguistically and culturally international country.

Have you ever noticed how it’s only majority White countries that have this obligation to become “multicultural” and “diverse”? No one asked us if we wanted this, and we certainly never had a vote about either of these agendas.

The thing is, when they start chasing down White areas and forcing them to “diversify” by law. It seems more about getting rid of White people, than including other groups.

Because of this, we have to ask, is it just White Genocide that they want?


White Genocide is discussed eloquently by Mr. Jared Taylor

The always eloquent Mr. Jared Taylor of American Renaissance has written an exquisite article, which is actually a transcription of a speech he made recently at a National Policy Institute conference. You may click on the title below to access the original article at Amren, where there is also an audio of the speech at the bottom, which can also be listened to here

White Survival: Beyond Left and Right

 Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, March 3, 2015
Conserving the American founding stock should be beyond politics.
Below is the talk Jared Taylor delivered at the National Policy Institute conference, hosted at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, February 27, 2015, followed by an audio recording.

The theme of this conference is “beyond conservatism,” and I’d like to start with a few things that are beyond both conservatism and liberalism, that is to say, some things people agree on whatever their politics. What I am thinking of is related to conservatism since it has the same root. It is the idea of conserving or conservation.

There are some things that essentially all people–no matter what their politics–are conservative about. The planet, to begin with. There are probably some misanthropes who would like to blow it up, but most folks, across the political spectrum, want to conserve it.

Most people also want to keep the planet livable so we can conserve the people who live on it. Mark Twain used to say, “Sometimes I’d like to hang the whole human race, and finish the farce,” but most of the time, people don’t feel that harshly about our species.

And we want to conserve animals. We’d be sorry to see giraffes or baboons die out.

Take the case of the Cuban crocodile. He’s a relative of the American crocodile and said to be a noble beast. But the Cubans are interbreeding with the Americans and could be genetically swamped. As one scientist explains, “the two crocodile species interbreeding may pose a major threat to Cuban crocodiles. In a worst-case scenario, one crocodile lineage can cause the extinction of another.” Scientists are fretting about how to prevent this tragedy.

Cuban crocodile--not to be bred with his American counterpart.

The United States government worries about conserving species you’ve never heard of–the Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle, the spruce-fir moss spider. If you buy land, and one of these guys turns up on it, you might not be able to develop it.

And most people want to conserve the different places where people live, and the different ways that people live in those places. We’re happy for Uruguay or China to remain distinctive countries. We all want different languages and cultures to flourish. In that respect we’re all conservative.


We are sad when the last speaker of an obscure language dies out or when a distinctive way of life comes to an end. That’s why Brazil now has an official policy of leaving untouched tribes alone if that’s at all possible. People living in the stone age should have the choice of staying there if that’s what they want.

Conserving these things literally does go “beyond political conservatism.”

However, there are things you are not allowed to want to conserve. Hardly anyone will oppose you if you say that the primitive tribes of New Guinea have the right to maintain their customs and their way of life, undisturbed by outsiders. But you better not say the same thing about the French or the Swedes.


If you say that the French have the right to keep their country Catholic and European, you’re not a conservationist. You’re a hatemonger. You’re not beyond conservatism, you’re beyond the pale.

According to current thinking, the French absolutely do not have the right to live undisturbed by outsiders. On the contrary, people from all over the world should be encouraged to move there.

This is astonishing, really. I can’t think of a single thing that New Guineans have contributed to the world. And yet their way of life will endure. That of the Europeans, who have immensely enriched the world, may not.

Not even conservatives argue that France is a distinctive biological and cultural entity that should be conserved. That’s not the way we are supposed to think about white countries. Korea? Yes. Ghana? Pakistan? Paraguay? Fine. Those places, like all other non-white nations, have the right to maintain their identities and ways of life.

And what about conserving white people biologically? They are a small minority of the world population–7 or 8 percent–and some of them are breeding with other groups, just like the Cuban crocodile. But anyone who says maybe we should think about the long-term prospects of white people–kind of like the way we do with the Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle–is no longer a conservationist. He’s a white supremacist.

And so there is not one politician in America–even among the ones who claim to be deeply conservative–who says he wants to conserve the founding stock of this country, who wants to conserve a majority-white United States.

The funny thing about all this is that it’s the Lefties who act as if they had the corner on conservation. They love government power, and they love to boss us around for our own good in the name of the conserving the environment. Why aren’t they all in a flutter about the prospects for white people exactly the way they are in a flutter about the ozone layer? I can see them browbeating us: “Now, you white people have to live over here, and you have to marry among yourselves.” “Remember: it’s for the children.” That’s just the busy-body sort of thing they love. Where’s Hillary when we need her?

Save the Whales

For most of the history of this country, of course, the idea of the United States as an explicitly white country was taken for granted: It was beyond debate, neither liberal nor conservativeIt’s well known that the very first immigration law, passed by the very first congress that was called after the ratification of the Constitution, restricted naturalization to “free white persons.”

Until 1965, we had an immigration policy designed to keep the country European.

There is nothing about the idea of United States as a nation of Europeans that is inherently a Left-Right type of political question at all. It should be beyond politics, just like conserving the white rhino or keeping Japan Japanese.

The racial mix of the country is not logically implicated at all in the position you take on the size of the government, the welfare state, abortion, the role of women, homosexual marriage, income distribution, foreign policy, public prayer, how you interpret the Constitution, or any other political question.

You can believe in cradle-to-grave welfare or rugged individualism, but be in complete agreement on wanting to keep the country majority-white. Jack London, for example, was very active as a socialist, but was adamantly opposed to a multi-racial America.

So: Why would anyone want to conserve whites as a distinct people, and want them to remain a majority in the United States? First of all, these questions shouldn’t even have to be answered. If the Navajo were dwindling in numbers or losing their culture, no one would say they didn’t have the right to do something about it. No one would ever ask the Navajo: Why do you care about surviving as a people? Why do you need a homeland? Why not just fade away? If a white person asked those questions it would be the height of racism.


But for white people? It’s the very opposite. The very desire to survive as a distinct people is “racist.”

Remember the Cuban crocodile: “In a worst-case scenario, one crocodile lineage can cause the extinction of another.” Well, strictly as biological artifacts, white people are at least as valuable as Cuban crocodile, if only for aesthetic reasons. And there’s a lot more than that. Europeans created the modern world. Shouldn’t they have the same rights as the tribes of New Guinea: To be left undisturbed?

These are objective questions, but, of course, there is also my own subjective view of white survival as a white person. Survival is the first law, there is no more fundamental instinct than the desire to protect one’s own kind and to want it to flourish.

That’s obvious when we are talking about any group but whites.

The number of Hispanics is growing very quickly in this country, and Hispanics are ecstatic about this. It means their language, their culture, their physical type, their heritage, their aspirations are all gaining ground and could eventually dominate the United States. Hispanics want this very much, and they consistently try to change laws and policies to increase their numbers, and benefit their people. This is considered a sign of healthy collective pride.


But if whites tried to delay their dispossession, if whites proposed steps to maintain their majority status, that would be hate and bigotry. Why? The processes are perfectly symmetrical. The percentage of Hispanics increases as the percentage of whites decreases. Why is it right for Hispanics to celebrate their gains but wrong for whites to regret their losses?

Let us imagine the immigration shoe on the other foot: What if whites were pouring across the border illegally into Mexico, demanding amnesty, demanding school instruction in English, demanding ballot papers in English, setting up newspapers, TV and radio stations to English rather than Spanish, complaining that they weren’t equally represented in government and all national institutions? What if so many of them were coming they were likely to outnumber the Mexicans?

The very people–white and Hispanic–who encourage the change in America’s population would rail against this as neo-colonialism and cultural imperialism. And yet when Hispanics come here with that intent and that effect–and when Muslims show up in Europe with the same intent and effect–any resistance is denounced as bigotry. Why? This question deserves an answer.

I make no secret of my view on this. My ancestors have been white for tens of thousands of years. My children are white and I want my grandchildren to be white. I like the culture of Europe, I prefer the society that whites create. What’s wrong with that?

Well, guess what? Even though they don’t admit it, almost all whites feel the same way I do.

Look at what they do, not what they say. Where do they live? Who are their friends? Who do they invite over for dinner? If you ask a white person to name a single non-white neighborhood he’d like to live in, or a single non-white school he’d want to send his children to, you get a blank.

Whites know in their bones that a non-white America is not the country they want for themselves or for their children. That is why, when the part of America in which they live becomes an outpost of Africa or Mexico, they move away–to some place where whites are still the majority. And most white people still want their children to marry other whites.


They wouldn’t dare say these things openly. They don’t even admit these things to themselves. But look at how they behave–and Lefties are no different from anyone else. As Joseph Sobran used to put it, “in their mating and migratory habits, you can’t tell a liberal from a Klansman.”

As the hippies used to say, white people just need to get in touch with their feelings.

Whites used to be entirely honest about their feelings, and there is no doubt that people who call themselves conservative were honest for longer than lefties were.

In the 1960s, William F. Buckley’s National Review supported apartheid in South Africa, and said that an immigration policy designed to keep the country white “requires no justification.” Preserving a white America was a goal so obviously legitimate that it didn’t have to be justified. It was “beyond conservatism” and “beyond liberalism.”


National Review doesn’t take that position now. It would banish anyone who did to the outer darkness of And that’s just one of the countless positions that conservatism has simply abandoned.

Take Martin Luther King. In the 1960s National Review called him a “rabble-rousing demagogue.” It said that the expression “civil rights movement” was ludicrous and should instead be called “the Negro revolt.”

Now, 50 years later, conservatives quote King as if he were a moral authority. Whenever they want to argue against racial preferences for non-whites they quote King’s line about judging people on the content of their character. And yet, by the time King died he was open and explicit about wanting race preferences and quota hiring for blacks.

So, why do conservatives quote the words of a plagiarist, adulterer, communist sympathizer, whom contemporary conservatives called a “rabble rouser”?

It’s because they have completely swallowed the leftist view that whites have no racial legitimacy. Conservatives can’t just say plainly that affirmative action discriminates against whites. They have to borrow the moral authority of a black person to say that. And that’s why they quote the “content of their character” line, which King didn’t even believe.

It’s hard to think of a more contemptible mental capitulation.

Fifty years ago, National Review said that the desire to keep America white “requires no justification.” Well, whites never did come up with a justification. That’s a big part of the problem. They never articulated moral reasons to justify their own survival. For hundreds of years–thousands of years–whites, like everybody else, never had to. They just took survival for granted as a legitimate goal.

But now, it means whites have no stock of tested ideas and arguments that they can draw on to justify survival. They have a deep foreboding about what is happening, but they don’t have words to express that foreboding. Without words, without convincing moral foundations, whites cannot act.

And that is what makes whites different from everyone else and what makes them uniquely vulnerable. Non-white immigrants don’t have to justify their conquest of the United States. They don’t have to explain why they want their numbers to grow at our expense. They know instinctively that it’s good for them, and that is all they need to know.

The same is true for Third-World immigrants to Europe. They don’t have to justify conquest. No, it is Europeans who would have to justify even the most basic steps necessary to assure their survival.

It should be no more necessary to explain why whites have the right to a future than to explain why it is better to live than to die. But that is the dilemma we face. Slowly, slowly, both in America and in Europe, we are waking up to this dilemma.

Thank you, Jared Taylor!
Readers, please see also these two articles from our own site, which focus on the exact means by which White Genocide is carried out:

About White Genocide

White Genocide in two easy lessons





White Genocide in two easy lessons

These were two of our meme-messages that we display to the public each month from the website of the president of the United States. (They’re written in the form of “petitions”)

White folk, look at your own family, or families you know, and see it happening

ALL White countries and ONLY White countries are being flooded with millions of non-Whites, and Whites are forced to integrate with them so as to “assimilate,” i.e. intermarry and be blended out of existence.

Whites today are where the Amerindians of Mexico were shortly after the Spaniards arrived and began interbreeding with them.


In time, Whites will be where those Amerindians are today: nearly interbred out of existence and replaced by a mixed race.

We see it beginning in our own families or in families we know.

We didn’t vote for our countries to be flooded with third-world non-Whites, nor did we vote to be chased down by diversity programs wherever we go!

The persons managing our genocide say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-White.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.


Save the white-tailed deer

The distinct valleys of the Great Smokey Mtns have produced distinct varieties of white-tailed deer.


If those varieties are mixed together to live in the same area, they’ll interbreed to eventually become just one single “variety” of white-tailed deer.

The same result will occur if humans are all mixed together.

The promotion of diversity everywhere in the world will end diversity.

But wait! Anti-whites are massively mixing the world’s races together ONLY IN WHITE COUNTRIES!

We urge the President to use his office to save both the white-tailed deer and the White race!

Anti-whites who are carrying out the present White Genocide say they’re anti-racist. What they are is ANTI-WHITE.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Diversity is a code word for White Genocide.



Please see also our main article,

About White Genocide


And please see also the extremely well composed discussion of White Genocide by the always eloquent Mr. Jared Taylor of American Renaissance,

White Survival: Beyond Left and Right

(That article, or speech actually, given at a recent National Policy Institute conference, is exquisitely written…it bowled me over! There is an audio of the speech at the link.)


We’re also featuring Mr. Taylor’s article on White GeNOcide Project if you’d like to comment on it:

White Genocide is discussed eloquently by Mr. Jared Taylor






Sweden Democrats now the most popular political party.


Someone should check the weather forecast, has hell frozen over? Because the Swedish are finally waking up!

For the first time ever, the Sweden Democrats, a party which is somewhat against anti-White policies like “diversity” and “multiculturalism”, has become the most popular political party amongst voters.

Statistics collector, EurActiv says the latest figures show that the Sweden Democrats would receive 25.2% of the vote, if an election was held at the time of the poll.

They have almost doubled the support they got from voters in the 2014 election, when Sweden Democrats got 13% of the vote, making them the 3rd most popular party.

A lot of people are unhappy with the government and its policies when it comes to immigration and integration, as well as the increasing number of beggars. Many people don’t view the Moderates or other right-wing parties as an alternative. So they turn to us,” said Richard Jomshof, a spokesperson for the Sweden Democrats.

Despite being the 3rd largest party, all the extreme anti-White political parties in Sweden are ganging up on the Sweden Democrats and trying to block any decision or argument they make, and trying to ban their political campaigns.

Søren Espersen, the leader of the Danish People’s Party has celebrated this news, and said that “Swedish political elite” have been living in a “fantasy world” for many years, and ordinary Swedes may be waking up.

Sweden Democrats may not take a clear stance against White genocide, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.