 | |
| Raphael Lemkin, A Polish Jew and legal scholar who coined the term Genocide |
Genocide is as European as civilization: five or six million Jews, six or eight million Ukranians, twenty to forty million Russian victims of Stalinist autogenocide, to name just recent incidents.
Today genocide is underway in Europe on the most massive scale yet, the entire destruction of the ancient peoples of Europe through mass immigration.
The other day, I reproduced here, a post from Jewamongyou's (JAY) blog entitled, Europe is Doomed. My post has since been removed by Blogger for, so far as I am aware, technical reasons, although disconcertingly, immediately before it disappeared an anonymous commenter had, beside the routine politically correct accusation of racism, idiocy, and general vileness, threatened to "get rid of this dreadful crap."
Quite what "crap" he found dreadful, whether the particular post or the entire content of this undoubtedly crappy blog, I am not sure. But in any case, if the post had not just then disappeared, I would have responded as follows:
Anon,
I suppose it did not occur to you to justify your insults or threats.
But then it is true that a charge of racism requires no justification does it?
As Joe Sobran explained in an essay entitled The Culture of Tyranny
Nobody knows exactly what “racism” is; it can mean anything the accuser wants it to mean. And it rarely refers to overt acts; usually it refers to the alleged thoughts or attitudes of the accused.
Second, nothing has to be proved – and since the word has no clear definition, nothing can be proved. So the accuser bears no burden of proof, as he would in cases of ordinary crimes. The accused is presumed guilty as long as the accusation is sufficiently strident. And, given the vagueness of the charge, he can’t prove he isn’t racist.
Third, and most important, nobody ever has to pay a price for making a false or reckless accusation. Nobody is ruined or disgraced for making loose charges of “racism.” Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton continue to thrive after making far more wild charges than Joe McCarthy. ...
But tell us, Anon., who really is the racist?
He who questions the state-sponsored destruction of the European people, or he who seeks to suppress any discussion of this policy of racial, cultural and religious genocide?
I also commented on JAY's blog as follows:
I find your statement:We live under a psycho-tyranny that, in the name of fighting racism, aims to destroy every nation on Earth. Crushing independent nations out of existence is the greatest challenge faced by any empire, but it is a challenge for which the New World Order seems especially well equipped to provide the final solution.
Nothing short of a Nazi-style racially conscious fascist regime could make a dent in the problem”difficult to understand.
The great majority of the population in Britain, and I assume elsewhere in Europe, is opposed to mass immigration (a view entirely justifiable in economic terms, quite apart from any objection people may have to the destruction of their own race). So why would democracy not work?
And in fact democracy would work, but the people are offered no choice in the matter of mass immigration or other crucial matters, all parties being controlled by the same interests and differing only sufficiently to create a plausible election contest, essential differences being forgotten the day after the election. Under this pseudodemocracy, democratic "extremists" are taken care of by fake populist parties -- probably run by one or other of the security services -- which make a great display of fascistic, thuggish, stupidity, which guarantees them an "extreme right" label (e.g., the anit-immigration British National Party run by Masonic clown and Cambridge-trained lawyer, Nick Griffin, a security services operative, surely), thus ensuring that virtually no one dare publicly espouse those parties or those parties' policies.
Clearly Europe already has a totalitarian form of government, which through the use of psy-war techniques rather than overt tyranny is undertaking a program of genocide against its own people.
This makes perfectly good sense in the context of the project for a New World Order. If we are to have a global system, the nation state, and with it the nations of the earth, have to go. (The Jews, for some reason, feel they should be immune from this fate, which is odd since Jews, at least those of long European descent, are surely one of the most mixed races -- from dusky curly-haired south Europeans to blonde blue-eyed Ukrainians and Saxons -- if indeed they are, apart from a smattering of Semitic genes, a distinct racial entity at all.)
There can be no doubt that, today, Western elites seek to create a global empire that will serve not the interests of their own people but the interests of a deracinated plutocratic elite. If it succeeds, this project will result in a global tyranny that destroys every nation on Earth as a racial, cultural, religious and political entity. This is no less than a program of universal genocide as Raphael Lemkin, who coined that term, defined it.
The crime of the [German Nazi] Reich in wantonly and deliberately wiping out whole peoples is not utterly new in the world. It is only new in the civilized world as we have come to think of it. It is so new in the traditions of civilized man that he has no name for it.
It is for this reason that I took the liberty of inventing the word, “genocide.” The term is from the Greek word genes meaning tribe or race and the Latin cide meaning killing. Genocide tragically enough must take its place in the dictionary of the future beside other tragic words like homicide and infanticide. As Von Rundstedt has suggested the term does not necessarily signify mass killings although it may mean that.
More often it refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong.
Related:
CanSpeccy: In England, the Traitors Blair, Cameron and May Have Won, the Destruction of the English Nation Is Now Assured
Interesting discussion!
ReplyDelete- Aangirfan
Although a majority of native Europeans oppose mass immigration, I do not think they have the stomach to do what would be necessary to rid themselves of the threat that is already there - even if all new immigration stopped tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteJAY,
ReplyDeleteThe question whether indigenous Europeans "have the stomach to do what would be necessary to rid themselves of the threat that is already there", i.e., to redress the racial balance sufficiently to preserve the European peoples more or less as they existed prior to, say, 1950, can be resolved into several parts.
First, if by "indigenous Europeans" we are referring to the existing political entities headed by people such as Cameron or Sarkozy you are surely correct.
After all, Cameron it was who said during the election campaign that the problem of mass immigration must be "gripped," but who almost immediately upon election admitted that that promise was all hooey, just an "aspiration," not policy (God, I didn't know the Brits could produce a leader more mendacious than Blair).
And Sarkozy it was who advised the French people to marry an immigrant if they wanted any chance of posterity.
Second, if by "indigenous Europeans" we are referring to the two-thirds or more of the British population (whose views on mass immigration are probably not much different from those of the Dutch the French the Germans and the Italians) who in multiple opinion surveys have shown there firm opposition to mass immigration, then I do not believe you are correct.
However, since the people can do nothing of their own volition, despite a supposedly democratic system, then some kind of political upheaval would be necessary to end the genocide of the old European peoples.
Does it have to be Nazi-style racially conscious fascist regime (to use your description)? Certainly it would have to be racially conscious. But most of the population is racially conscious and aware that they are being trashed by a fascistic ruling elite, so that would not be undemocratic.
I say a "fascistic ruling elite" because it was Mussolini, the founder of fascism, who contended that it was the function of the state to create and shape the nation. That is exactly the belief of the pseudo-democratic western elite today.
Therefore, it seems, we do not need Nazi style dictatorship but a government prepared to follow the people's democratically expressed will not to be genocided. That seems a reasonable concession for any elected government to make.
But, you could argue, there is no way for such a government to come into existence over the objection of the existing elite which, through its control of the instruments of propaganda , the media, schools, police, etc., can sway election results any way it wants.
So the question is whether the existing elite could either be relieved of power or persuaded to change its mind.
Hm! As I work through this argument I find myself coming to your conclusion!
For although Hitler came to power with the aid of the corporate, military, land-owning and Catholic elites he overruled them when he had absolute power.
But would the elites allow that kind of end-run again? Obviously they aim not to allow it and will be wary of anyone attempting to obtain a position in which they could exercise and end-run -- which is a reason to suspect that today's leaders are little more than puppets, actors, good at reading from a teleprompter, selected and built-up by unseen and unheard of committees.
It may be, therefore, that a change of view among the elite, who are now in a treasonous alliance against their own people, is the only hope.
But that I agree is most unlikely. The attitude of the elite in any society toward the common people is typically much more contemptuous that that of the average white man for the average black man, or vice versa: the interest of the people must be sacrificed without limit.
I hasten to add that, as I outlined in a comment on JAY's blog, I do not believe that a government, whether democratic or otherwise, that is committed to redressing the racial balance in Europe need resort to Nazi-style atrocities to achieve its aim. Of course it may do so, just as do the pseudodemocratic governments that rule throughout most of the West today.
ReplyDeleteHey, I got the link to here from Jewamongyou's blog, your comments were interesting to read.
ReplyDeleteThis problem is quite large.
Good article. You may enjoy my take on this issue which is similar in many ways to your own.
ReplyDeletehttp://revolutionharry.blogspot.com/2011/06/mass-immigration-and-new-tower-of-babel.html
Re: Mass immigration and the new Tower of Babel
ReplyDeleteHarry,
That's not a blog post. It's a flipping pamphlet! And a long one at that.
I skimmed it last night. Good quotes, important info, well written and excellent illustrations: the symbolism that underlies the architecture of the European Parliament of which I was unaware, but which is obvious when pointed out, is astounding.
I would be inclined to question some of your sources, and about the emphasis on the occult thinking of the elite. Our rulers may all be morons like George Witless Bush, who like mucking around with skulls and bones. But I doubt whether this is of much significance and it seems to me it can be a distraction. Guided by the likes of Henry Makow one can waste much energy on very strange claims that are unlikely ever to be verified. Better, it seems to me, to focus on the overt evil that the elite perpetrate -- something you do well in the Tower of Babel piece.
PS, Re: the Tower of Babel piece,
ReplyDeletethat about City of London: it makes no sense to me.
The City of London is simply an elected municipal authority, with a long pedigree, and which, like many municipalities, it has its own police force.
The supposed Papal connection makes no apparent sense. Remember Henry VIII!
If you read the six volume account of the History of England by the great Scottish philosopher, David Hume, you will find no reference to Popish control of England via the City of London. Likewise, the great 19th century, Whig historian and atheist, Thomas Macaulay says nothing about it in his five-volume History of England since the Accession of James II.
One could cite many other great historians who know nothing about this alleged role of the Pope and the City of London in governing world affairs. I think it is just more of Henry Makow's bogus rubbish.
Re: Previous comment about The City of London
ReplyDeleteA good article, but I think that we are approaching the point of no return,
ReplyDelete1] if our elected Political Class did listen to us and allowed a referendum to stop all Immigration from outside of the EU, including the right to bring in wives, parents etc of those already living here. There would be a major backlash from our peaceful immigrant communities.
2] the loud public faces of those who want Sharia are not the ones to be feared, it is the ones who work quietly in the background using the system.
Example a certain Lord, who claimed “I can get 10,000 young Muslims on the streets of London tomorrow, if the Dutch MP is allowed in to this country and speaks to Parliament.”
3] the problem will only be solved, when the immigrant population start to vote for their own people to go to Westminster and force thru legislation that suits them. But will are Politicos realise this before it is too late for them, and us?
Sharia Law, enforces the death penalty for Gays, Adulterers and people who blaspheme, that could cull quite a few of our Politicos?
4] If you wish to see what might happen, look at Pakistan and India, in 1947 before partition there was approx 15% Hindus, 5% Christian and 1% other faiths in Pakistan, rest were Muslims. Whilst in India, 15% Muslim, 10% Christian and 5% other faiths, rest were Hindus. Now In Pakistan Hindus, Christians and others are a severely oppressed minority of less then 5%, whilst the rest are Muslim. In India, Christian and other faiths remain at 15%, whilst the Muslim are now 20% and the rest are Hindu. I know that India as a terrible caste system, but at least it is fairly tolerant of minorities. Whilst Pakistan is extremely intolerant, you have 3 choices, Convert to Islam, Leave Pakistan, or live in Pakistan as a second-class citizen.
The Indigenous population as too make its mind up and use Democracy to force our Politicians to listen, or just sit back and let it happen. Because once the Immigrants are in the majority they will not hesitate to use there majority to enforce their collective will on us.
Yes, on all points.
DeleteRe: "The Indigenous population has to make its mind up and use Democracy to force our Politicians to listen..."
Trouble is the liberals like John Cleese who love diversity and drive the multiculti agenda don't live in the working class areas that have been overrun by immigrants, so they can indulge their wonderful tolerance without the slightest inconvenience, while watching corporate profits, the value of their shareholdings and the price of their houses rise as mass immigration drives down wages, drives up property prices and creates huge profit opportunities for developers and builders of infrastructure.
And the people who have been made strangers in their own community by an influx of aliens, are inarticulate nonentities who can be bullied by the police and courts, and if necessary incarcerated, until they learn to be silent.