How can it be objectively true when there isn't even an objective definition of white supremacy, let alone knowledge of who subscribes to that belief? But even then, growing on what time scale? It's surely been in decline over the past century but perhaps grew over the previous year or decade? The journalist is still correct if it grew over the past year and otherwise declined over the past decade, or if the reverse is true, so it's a meaningless statement without more details.

> He has only flawed circumstantial evidence for the former

The former is consensus among researchers in the field. The latter is something there's disagreement on and no clear consensus. This is not like claiming the Earth is flat or he achieved cold fusion. It's not clearly incorrect, but is morally wrong by contemporary standards.

The fact that you are blatantly a white supremacist means that your entire first paragraph is dripping in pure bad faith. You are also attacking your own strawman by the way, "growing white supremacy" was your quote! Not something from a journalist. White supremacy has clearly been crowing over the past decade, with increasing membership and activity among white supremacist terrorist groups (in the US) and political parties (in the EU). I guess you can say that it "declined" over the past century, but that's a useless point of view when considering the Christchurch terrorist attack.

> The former is consensus among researchers in the field.

No it isn't. The "consensus among researchers in the field" is that black Americans tend to score more poorly on IQ tests than white Americans. It does not mean black people are actually "dumber" since IQ is not conclusively related to "intelligence" - we don't even know what intelligence is! We also know that you can raise your IQ considerably by practicing IQ tests, that psychological pressures have immense impact on IQ scores, that education increases your IQ score, that being adopted into a richer family can increase your IQ score, and so on. Hence the IQ tests are flawed circumstantial evidence, where the testee's "inherent" and "biological" intelligence is hopelessly entangled with psychological and economic factors that obviously have nothing to do with the individual.

This is like the phrenology arguments of old: it might have been the consensus among researchers in the field that Africans had less cranial CC than Europeans. But there was no evidence that this had anything to do with brainpower, and racists like yourself have always played fast-and-loose with "real fact" versus "evidence-free assertion" to make your point. Now that it's been demonstrated that the 19th century phrenologists were wrong about African/European head size differences, you rarely see people pushing phrenological arguments and they sound self-evidently ridiculous.

> The fact that you are blatantly a white supremacist

No I'm not. But the fact you count me as one, shows that it probably is increasing by way of being redefined to include a broader group of people.

If you want to be pedantic, "dumb" means unable to speak, so obviously we're using the term colloquially here. IQ is our best measure of intelligence and it's reasonable to say "dumber" means "lower IQ". You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater because it doesn't support your belief.