The White Genocide Myth (WGM) is one of the most popular conspiracy theories among White supremacists and other antisemites, yet narratives derived from it are regularly featured in mainstream immigration discourse in the United States. To safely attract followers and advance political agendas, White supremacists often reframe their beliefs into more neutral and media-friendly language. I designed a 3X2X2 conjoint experiment to explore whether changing the target (Mexico, Iraq, or England), the tone (ambiguous or explicitly negative), and the source (White nationalist or patriot) of an anti-immigrant argument derived from WGM would significantly influence agreement and perceptions of factual accuracy. Perceptions of WGM’s factual accuracy increased when participants reported higher homophily (perceived similarity to another) to the source, and the source self-identified as a patriot. Participants were more likely to agree with WGM if they viewed the argument as factual and viewed it in the patriot condition, an ambiguous condition, an Iraq condition, or a Mexico condition. Agreement was also positively related to both explicit and implicit prejudice against immigrants, with explicit prejudice being the stronger correlate and predictor. A closer look at the source’s impact on agreement and perceptions of factuality revealed that the patriot condition elicited higher ratings on both from only White participants. Participants of color found WGM equally unpersuasive and lacking factuality, regardless of source condition. Moving forward, activists, scholars, policymakers, and counterterrorism efforts should be aware of these biases and the opportunities they provide for extremists to influence mainstream politics.