Category Archives: European Genocide

Indigenous Peoples and Cultural Suicide

We’ve decided to write an article that examines what constitutes indigenous peoples, what constitutes genocide, and what constitutes lawful militant resistance. The article is linked below.

Indigenous Peoples and Cultural Suicide

To some extent other people have written about these subjects before, and subsequently we’re just piling the same crap that accomplishes nothing onto the giant heap of crap that is already out there. Words accomplish little without a plan of action, so it’s preferable to use as few words as possible and focus on action instead, but there’s no bigger waste of time than investing in a plan of action that is ineffective and doomed to fail.

Another problem is that wisdom is not additive; one genius pondering the meaning of life will find more wisdom than a million idiots collectively pondering the same subject. This is part of the reason why modern democracies, without exception, have failed the people they serve. This also means that one person with a conviction can make a difference at the intellectual level, though boots will still be needed on the ground.

This explains why the system is tolerant of criticism as long as it doesn’t materialize into a plan of action. Intellectuals in turn are hesitant to provide anything that goes beyond vague hints, while expecting the reader to read between the lines, or between the lines in-between the lines. Why is this so? Most intellectuals do not speak their mind because ultimately they lack courage, conviction, and cling to life like a child clings to its mother. They lost the game.

Back to the topic at hand.

Native Europeans qualify as indigenous peoples, but only if they self-identify as such, and only if they resolve to maintain their ancestral environments (territory) and systems (language, culture, and customs) as distinctive peoples. In the current political environment it will require courage and conviction to reject multiculturalism and reject assimilation.

“Our most important task ahead is to deconstruct the majority, and we must deconstruct them so thoroughly that they will never be able to call themselves the majority again.” –Thomas Hylland Eriksen (2008)

Cultural Marxism desires to decimate the European indigenous majority as they favor a culturally and racially divided society, better known as Multiculturalism. Subsequently the question becomes: Is the political desire to weaken a national group as morally wrong as the desire to destroy a national group?

If you view the political initiative to weaken a national group as a train, how do you intend to activate the breaks? As the people who started the train are the same who must stop the train, and these very people are the ones who are being weakened in an act of self-mutilation, isn’t this dangerous? As the train gets closer to the abyss of total destruction more people will also actively resist, and this resistance strengthens the resolve that further weakening is required. Most Cultural Marxists have also lost sight of the big picture, or are afraid to admit they have created a monster, that they themselves have become the evil they swore to eradicate.

We are Heinlein’s Orphans of the Sky, the people who set the train in motion are long gone, most think it’s normal to be on a fast moving train with nobody at the break. The end of the track is in sight, some see it coming, some don’t. Those in power know nothing but the train, they’re scared of change. Their religion dictates that the train leads to heaven, multicultural utopia, it must not be stopped. They are willing to lock up, even kill, anyone going for the emergency break.

So even if the actual intent is not genocide, these policies will result in a situation where the indigenous European population will be outnumbered in their historical homelands, and will no longer have the means to defend themselves from an actual genocide.

Is resisting genocide a human right?

If the answer is yes, is it a human right to resist policies that will make it impossible to resist your own genocide? History has shown that genocide does not happen over night, it is a long road, and in hindsight you can always see it coming. You need to stop the train the moment it takes a turn onto the wrong track, you don’t keep going on in the hopes that another turn will present itself when the lives of your people are at stake. We are in the tunnel, the lights are out, we know there is no light at the end of the tunnel, we think there is time left to stop the train… but we don’t know if it’s 20 years, 10 years, 1 year…

The exact regulations and restrictions on paramilitary activities can be found in the article, but the obvious conclusion is that lawful organized militant resistance is an exercise in futility. Even if you follow every single rule it’s unlikely that a nation will recognize a separatist paramilitary organization, nor is a nation required to by international law. This means that the armed resistance against your people’s genocide, even when following all the rules, will result in being labeled a terrorist.

One clear strategy would be for an organization to demand to be recognized before it will abide by international regulations for lawful militant resistance. There is however a moral dilemma as to whether a nation in support of genocidal policies can be negotiated with, and whether the Laws of War apply in a situation where people are resisting genocide. It could be beneficial to follow the Laws of War when doing so poses no tactical or strategical disadvantage, as this would pave the way for a lawful military conflict.

From a moral perspective all means justify the end if the end is to prevent your own genocide. The emergency break states to only use it in a case of emergency, the conductor announces over the intercom not to panic, that everything is alright. A train magician performs tricks, soothing music plays over the intercom, at last the windows are replaced with television screens. Some passengers accept the world shown on the new TV screen, some passengers look at each other nervously; they realize the conductor is basing his message on faith alone.

Civilian activities.

What remains on the civilian front is the creation of separatist political parties, self-defense against anti-fascists (who function as the paramilitary wing of Cultural Marxism), the glorification of martyrs, the complete rejection of Multiculturalism (in the economical, ideological, sociological, and political sense), using the tactics of Cultural Marxists against them, preparing for the worst, in-your-face propaganda, taking the message to the streets, and formulating a well-rounded plan of action.

Another issue of great importance is the need for the European peoples to consolidate their ideological framework, which should contain their identity, a sense of moral right, and an unwillingness to bow down before tyranny. We must conquer our fear and reject multiculturalism without compromise.

We must forgive those who are destroying us as well as themselves, for they know not what they do, but we must never fail to let them know that they are traitors: that there is no greater crime than treason.

Advertisements

Is Resisting Genocide a Human Right?

This seems like a simple question with a simple answer, but back in 2006 three people wrote a large article about the subject, quoting close to 300 sources to support their argumentation. Their analysis bears a strong resemblance to the European situation, and supports the view that the Cultural Marxist ideology is creating an environment where Europeans can become the victim of genocide.

Is resisting genocide a human right?

By studying past and current genocides they have found several pre-cursors to genocide, some of which are:

  1. Undemocratic rule
  2. Suppression of the free press
  3. Active incitement of hatred against minority groups

Cultural Marxist nations are known to suppress free press or have a monopoly on the press, which in modern times is best known as the mainstream media. With this totalitarian control over the media there is no criticism about the lack of free press and freedom of speech, or that only politically correct parties are allowed to participate in the democratic process.

While Europeans are a majority group they are the victim of incitement of hatred, with European males being characterized as an oppressive parasitic upper class. This doesn’t bode well as Europeans  will become a minority in the near future due to low birth rates, combined with mass immigration.

They further analyze the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression

The language is weird, and the declaration itself is a joke, but for the sake of argument it does support the right to resist your own genocide.

The document goes into great detail about the right to bear arms as a means to defend against genocide, and takes note that the disarmament of a population is a direct pre-cursor to all major genocides.

South Africa is perhaps the best modern example of disarmament of a vulnerable population group by their government.  Possession of an illegal weapon is punishable by 15 years imprisonment. Semi-automatic weapons are banned and you’re only allowed to have one weapon. The waiting time for a permit can be as long as 5 years, meaning your permit will have expired by the time you get it. Any application will be rejected if the government determines there is a lack of need to possess a weapon. People younger than 27 are automatically denied for being too young. As a result from 1999 to 2007, the number of legal gun owners in South Africa fell by 44 percent. There is a vibrant black market for illegal weapons, and in African fashion, most of those weapons come from army stockpiles.

The Genocide Convention prohibits more than the direct killing of humans. Other actions can constitute genocide, for example, rape would not normally be genocide, but if a commander promoted the widespread rape of a civilian population — with the intent of preventing normal reproduction by that population — then the pattern of rape could constitute genocide.

This leaves one to wonder if it’s genocide when a government was to promote miscegenation (race mixing) by making it appear as normal in movies, claims mixed-race children are healthier while ignoring scientific evidence of increased mental instability, claims mixed-race children are more attractive by promoting attractive mixed race models and declaring race-mix central, Brazil, as having the most beautiful women on earth, while aggressively oppressing any criticism of the practice. To some extend the media does most of the work, while anti-fascists intimidate anyone who speaks out publicly, but in most genocide situation it’s the government who stands idly by while radical activists and militants do the dirty work.

There is no need to send out rape squats if you can indoctrinate a population to create mixed race offspring (with mixed loyalties) voluntarily. In addition many women are afraid to reject the advances of people outside of their race out of fear of being labeled a racist, an accusation that can have significant negative consequences in Western society.

In summary, the article shows that under existing international law, genocide victims are not obliged to wait for foreign governments or world organizations to rescue them. According to international law genocide victims have a fundamental human right to use armed force to resist genocide. Because the prohibition of genocide is a fundamental principle of international law, any local, national, or international laws or government actions which interfere with self-defense by genocide victims are necessarily unlawful. In particular, arms control laws which may sometimes be valid may not be enforced against genocide victims or against persons who supply arms to genocide victims; enforcement would make the enforcing court or other state agency complicit in genocide.