|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:
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.