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.
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.
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.