“Is it not obvious to anyone with the ability still to think that, if our overlords are deliberately pursuing policies designed to reduce the population of Group A whilst massively increasing the population of Group B, they have an agenda?”
The mission of Gates of Vienna is to resist to the Islamization of the West.
As is often pointed out — not least by the proprietors of this blog — the real enemy is not Islam, but the neo-Marxists who control the political systems, major charitable organizations, media outlets, and academic institutions throughout the Western democracies. Islam would not be a problem if we had not already been traduced by our political and cultural leaders.
Ordinary people in the West are just now beginning to wake up to what has been done to them. They are discovering that they have been lied to, disempowered, disenfranchised, and trapped in a soft-totalitarian welfare state. The end game of all this is their disappearance: they are being systematically replaced by Third World immigrants who are substantially less educated, less intelligent, cheaper to hire, and more easy to manipulate — or so it is hoped.
Sarah Maid of Albion has taken a look at what is happening, and makes a compelling case that none of it is by accident. Today she published the first part of a new essay, Genocide by Stealth. The beginning of her article is excerpted below:
Genocide by stealth – Part 1
You can starve them to death in their millions, as Stalin did, and as Lenin had before him. You can force them to march through the desert until they drop dead through hunger and exhaustion as was the Turks’ preferred method of dispatching some one and a half million Armenians, whilst the world was distracted by the first World War. Alternatively if you wish to speed up the process you can shoot them, bomb them, gas them as Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds, or merely hack them to bits with machetes, by which means the Rwandans slaughtered 800,000 people in a mere 100 days during 1994.
The problem with all those tried and tested means of eradicating large groups of people, is that it is almost impossible to hide what you have done from a world community, which, in the main, considers most forms of genocide to be morally unacceptable and a breach of international law.
The exception, of course, is the ANC government in South Africa, who have, so far quite effectively, managed to portray the racially motivated slaughter of members of an ethnic minority as being merely “crime related”, painting repeated acts of genocide as an unending series of “botched burglaries” or multiple “car-jackings gone wrong” . However, their success in hiding their own brand of blood stained ethnic cleansing, has been dependant upon the very special set of circumstances relating to South Africa, and, crucially, upon an outside world not wishing to know the truth.
As such the South African model is unlikely to translate as successfully beyond the dark continent’s southern region, and the violent slaughter of a selected ethnic group in any other part of the world, particularly the West, would be less easy to conceal.
However, although there is effectively only one word for genocide, it can come in many forms. To commit genocide, it is not always necessary to perpetrate acts of violence, or indeed murder. There are many definitions of genocide, all equally effective, albeit not all as speedy as the ones chosen in Rwanda.
If one was prepared to take time and if one was sufficiently ideologically committed to embark upon a genocidal enterprise, the conclusion of which one might personally not live to see, then it is entirely possible to achieve the gradual genocide by stealth of a vast target group without the perpetrators ever having to reveal their blood stained hands.
One need only create the conditions in which the target group will cooperate with its own destruction, and, with any luck, not awake to what is happening until too late.
Travel with me now gentle reader and I will explain to you why some believe that the greatest act of genocide in human history is currently being attempted, and how that act may already well on its way to being achieved.
First we need to understand what genocide is. Amongst the United Nations definitions of Acts of Genocide (1) you will find along with the acts of war and violence, the following two definitions which also constitute genocide:
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the targeted groupDeliberately inflicting on the targeted group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
Bearing the points above in mind I invite you to consider where we, the native peoples of Europe have been brought to, in particular over the 65 years since the guns fell silent at the end of a war which our grandfathers were told they were fighting in order to save the future for their children.
Far from saving the future for their children, I would suggest to you that, since World War II, conditions of life have been introduced by those who hold power over us which are calculated to bring about the destruction, at the very least in part, of those very children, the native people of Europe. Meanwhile measures have been introduced intended to significantly reduce the number of Native European births.
Seen in isolation, much of what has happened appears quite harmless, in some instances even beneficial, however, when viewed all together a far darker picture begins to emerge:
A victim will the more willingly drink his poison if its made to taste sweet, and what was sweeter than a sexual revolution without the inconvenience of pregnancy. Forms of contraception have existed with varying degrees of effectiveness for hundreds of years, but never before has it been so easy to avoid getting pregnant. Many will argue that the avoidance of an unwanted pregnancy is beneficial, they will point to the shame and social exclusion of unwed mothers in the past, to prematurely aged women brought to early graves by repeated child bearing, to the financial burden which large families can cause and of course they are correct in some degree, albeit certainly not in the numbers they inevitably claim.
I will not deny that effective, and easily accessible, contraception has benefits for individuals, however, millions of indigenous European children, whom nature intended to be conceived, have not been conceived as a direct result of the contraceptive pill, and the benefits, if any, of that loss to us collectively as European people are less easy to quantify.
As I type this I can already hear the shrill squawks of derision from the trolls and intellectual pygmies at forums such as fstdt.net, who monitor this blog from time to time, and, no doubt, some more grown up readers will raise a sceptical eye-brow at the linkage of oral contraception to genocide. However, I would ask you to put your prejudice to one side and consider these things in context. This is but one aspect of many and, when so many coincidences lead in one direction it is hard to ignore a design.
The contraceptive pill, initially available to married women as a means of family planning, is now celebrated as a weapon of female liberation and heavily promoted within white western nations. It is, of course, also a means of not having children in the numbers which any race needs in order to survive.
Even when the pill fails, it is now, for the first time in history, easy and, in almost every western nation, legal to terminate unwanted pregnancies. As a result of laws passed at the same time that the contraceptive pill was being made widely available, across the West millions upon millions of unborn children have been killed, mainly, to a huge degree, for reasons of convenience rather than medical necessity (including what might be called the “dump the boyfriend, kill the kid” scenario)
Again as with contraception, abortion is portrayed as both a right and a further means of liberating women, in fact it is implied that to be opposed to abortion is to to be anti-women. Indeed, popular culture regularly depicts those who are pro-life as being evil or unbalanced, meanwhile, people who are pro-choice/pro-death are portrayed as decent, rational and even rather heroic. As we all know when the media resort to propaganda, they have an agenda.
Is it just coincidence that the two greatest social changes, effecting human reproduction, in the second half of the the 20th Century resulted in tens of millions of western children not being born? If so, then here is another coincidence.
There are, of course, other, less obvious ways of preventing births than merely preventing conception or by killing foetuses, you need only create an environment which discourages the target group from reproducing. As a result of successive deliberate economic policies during exactly the same historical period during which the changes described above were taking place, the vast majority of women are now forced to work, rather than stay at home and raise families.
They are, of course, told that being away from home anything up to twelve or more hours a day (and for most of us remote linking or bringing work home at night) is liberating, whereas, in fact, they have no option.
What has changed? It has far less to do with social attitudes than it has with the new economic reality. As recently as the 1960’s the average man’s take home pay was sufficient to support his home and his family, which was, on average, larger than a modern western family. That is no longer possible for anyone under executive level and only then if the husband commutes for hours each day.
This didn’t happen by accident, it didn’t happen due to natural progression, it was the result of deliberate political acts and government policy.
For instance, one of the reasons why men’s wages have not kept pace with the cost of maintaining a home and family is mass immigration, which has been cynically used to depress wages.
A recent study (2) in America estimated that by pushing down wages, immigration triggers a substantial redistribution of income from native-born workers to native-born owners of capital. It was calculated that this redistribution amounts to about 2 percent of GDP, or a whopping $250 billion annually at current levels. And it is the native elites who gain this sum at the expense of native workers, who’s wages are kept artificially low.
A similar figure will certainly apply to Europe, where mass immigration is also forcing down wages. Consequently, most men can no longer support their families single handedly. As a direct result most woman now work, and most working woman put off having children and have less children than previous generations. I repeat, it is a lie to say women now have the “choice” to work, they have no choice, they have no option but to work. That is not liberation.
Whatever your views on contraceptives, abortion and working woman (I am certainly in favour of women being free to choose to work) it is impossible to deny that, as described above, whether deliberately or otherwise, measures, resulting from deliberate government policy, have been put in place in every Western Nation all of which have drastically reduced the birth rate amongst native Europeans. None of it occurred naturally, and none of it was unavoidable.
That sounds very much like one of the UN’s definitions of genocide to me.
Meanwhile, Western governments pump billions of dollars each year into aid programmes designed to increase the birth rate non-European countries. The same ministers who promote abortion at home celebrate reductions in child mortality in third world countries, is this not a double standard?
Whilst our population ages and our birth rate falls, the non-European population of the world is increasing to unsustainable levels
At the time of the Live Aid appeal in 1984, the population of Ethiopia was 42 million, it is now almost 81 million and projected to reach 145 million by 2050, and that is all Ethiopians (there is not much immigration into Ethiopia).
Zimbabwe apart, similar examples apply in almost every third world country. In 1950 the population of Pakistan, another recipient of significant European aid and a net exporter of immigrants, was 40 Million, it is now 169 million and expected to reach 295 million by 2050 (3).
Meanwhile the native population of Europe is plummeting and in both respects the cause of the demographic change can be traced to the deliberate acts of Western governments.
Siren voices whisper moral blackmail into our Western ears “We must reduce our population further to save the planet” but this propaganda is only aimed at us, the white west, the only single group on the planet which desperately needs to increase its population in order to survive.
Why? Is it not obvious to anyone with the ability still to think that, if our overlords are deliberately pursuing policies designed to reduce the population of Group A whilst massively increasing the population of Group B, they have an agenda?
Our shrinking birth rate, which our governments have arguably conspired to create, is the excuse they then give for importing millions upon millions, upon million, upon millions of immigrants into our homelands in order to replace what we have not produced, that is to say, in order to replace us.
And this brings us to the second of the two definitions of genocide the deliberate infliction on the targeted group of conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. It is that second act of genocide which I will address in part 2 of this essay
Read the rest at Sarah’s Albion Blog.
Genocide by stealth – Part 2
Easy, free, and officially encouraged access to oral contraception, the legalisation of abortion, effectively on demand, and changes to the economic structure which have forced the average family unit to cease consisting of one breadwinner and one child carer, but instead to become formed of two breadwinners, have resulted directly in a catastrophic reduction in the birth rate among whites of native European origin.
All three changes have resulted directly from deliberate social or economic engineering on the part of post war governments, and it is impossible to argue that a reduction in births was not a primary aim, at least of the first two or that a reduction in births has been a direct result of the third.
Therefore, I would submit for your consideration the fact that, whether through ill will or otherwise, measures have been put in place intended to prevent births within the targeted group. That targeted group being white native Europeans. This means of Genocide is clearly defined in Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Meanwhile, as I argued in part one, during the same period, monumental efforts have been made, by those same western governments to increase the birth rate amongst other races and ethnic groups.
Some may argue that counter measures, such as welfare benefits, and, indeed child benefit itself, have been put in place which actively encourage childbirth. However, as the figures clearly demonstrate, they have not had this effect, at least, they have not done so amongst the target group. White wage earners may welcome child benefit, but it is only those whites at the very lowest social levels who might consider welfare benefits an incentive to breed.
On the other hand, given that the welfare state in Britain and similar welfare arrangements Europe are among of the primary incentives for mass inward migration and that it is primarily amongst immigrant families in receipt of welfare and child benefits that a significant growth in birth rates has been seen, far from counterbalancing that damaging effect of other policies, this has, if anything, in fact added to the damage done to the native European people.
That is because, the inward migration honey pot created by a free for all Welfare state is one of the many ways by which a further act fitting the description of genocide has been committed. That is the deliberate infliction on the targeted group of conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
I would contend that the mass third world immigration into every single Western nation has created conditions which will lead to the destruction of the native European peoples, at very least in part.
How do you destroy a people if not by starving them, shooting them or marching them to death? There are many ways, but you can start by outnumbering them and forcing them out of their homelands. When it happens to other races in other places we call it ethnic cleansing, it is only when it happens to us, here that we call it progress.
Whatever you call it, it is happening, even the media have now been forced to admit that the native white population of Britain will have become an ethnic minority in their ancestral homeland by 2066. Many suspect that estimate is a conservative one, and that is likely to be much sooner than that, in much of England it most certainly will be sooner.
We should not forget that the annual “net” immigration figure, which the government publishes, does not take into account how many of those leaving the country are indigenous Britons who are replaced by immigrants, and the numbers classified as British born who are of foreign ancestry. As a consequence the official figure seriously underestimates the overall demographic change.
London only remains a majority white city if you include the furthest outer suburbs and the fact that non-Europeans are less likely to register on census forms. There is compelling evidence that in reality London has already passed the tipping point and that the native population are already a minority. Whether that is true or not it is certain that it soon will be and that without a shadow of a doubt, with one hundred years of the end of World War II, the descendants of those, the blitz generation, who flocked the streets to celebrate VE day, will be a racial minority in the city they fought to defend.
This will have resulted from a deliberate policy, which was never put to a vote. How is this not ethnic cleansing? How does this not equate to the other great displacements which history now condemns?.
In Birmingham, a city with one of the smallest remaining white majorities in Britain, the change may come even sooner. Certainly the native population have long ago been driven out of vast swathes of that city, as they have in many UK cities, including London.
It is often lamented that the sparrows are vanishing from London, but who dare admit so are the Cockneys?.
If the indigenous population of any other region of the word were being deliberately replaced, the word “genocide” would be on the tofu stained lips of every liberal. The UN security council would be in session and Hoxton high street would echo to the shrieks of horror, as Giles and Penelope recounted tales of vacations in Cairo or Bangkok where the locals had been forced out and replaced by people from Porthcawl and Billericay. However, as it is the people of European origin who are being supplanted its considered acceptable.
The same situation extends across the Western World. In fact European nations, such as Sweden, which have smaller native populations may well become majority non-white before we do. Even in the larger countries the problems associated with mass immigration are becoming obvious, however, their leaders do not see the solution to the problem as stopping immigration, but rather by getting rid of a homogeneous native population. This was made clear by French President Nicolas Sarkozy when he said “the only way to stop the violence and hatred of a multicultural society is through inter breeding between the races”, what else was he calling for other than the irradiation of the original French people?
This view echoed those expressed by so many of the social elite, and those who see themselves as opinion formers, such as journalist, political commentator and over-paid television personality Andrew Marr when, in a 1999 Guardian article, he encouraged “widespread and vigorous miscegenation”, or race mixing, to make the British public to accept the multicultural ‘Utopia’ he, and his kind are seeking to force upon us. Marr admitted that this might be “tricky to achieve as public policy”, however, the fact that he viewed miscegenation as the “best option” reveals a great deal about the attitudes of such people. (1)
There is a vast difference between a free society permitting interracial sex and the active promotion of mass miscegenation for a political aim, yet Sarkozy, Marr and the other mixed race proselytisers are too blinded by ideology to that what they are in fact advocating is ethnic cleansing. Or am I being to generous to them?
So, what caused this attitude? A view which would have been so alien to every generation before the 1960’s? Why is it considered as acceptable to do to us what would cause shock and outcry were it done to anyone else? The reason is clear, Europeans have been taught to think differently about themselves, and make no mistake, they have been deliberately taught to view themselves in the way they now do.
It may sound bizarre to claim that our media and our educators have created a fake history and then set about brainwashing us into feeling guilt about things which never happened, or which did not happen in the manner in which our children, and indeed most of the post 1960 generations are taught, but that is actually what is happening.
What out children are being taught in school about our history and our society are lies, pure and simple, and that has been the case now for decades.
This is accompanied throughout childhood and into adulthood by a constant barrage of propaganda forced upon us day and night through our entertainment and news media. Not only are we relentlessly confronted with depictions of the same fake history with which our children are being indoctrinated, but also a fake present, depicted in popular drama, entertainment and through the heavily sanitised and selective spin which now passes for news.
The news is arguably more shameful even than the drama, because it pretends to be objective and truthful when it is the exact reverse. Anything which can be spun to support the fantasy of a multicultural Utopia, the perpetual narrative of non-white victimhood or intrinsic white badness is highlighted with great prominence. Meanwhile anything which could undermine the multicultural dream, reveals whites as victims or exposes badness amongst non-whites is distorted, lied about or suppressed altogether.
I could go into great detail on this aspect, but wish to avoid this article becoming overly long, however, it is a subject I have addressed frequently, with numerous articles in previous posting which can be found in the blog archives. However, I have added links to a number of my previous posting on the subject of media propaganda and misinformation at the bottom of this article (2).
Once one appreciates what is happening you are confronted with it relentlessly, but sadly very few actually realise what is happening, it is, after all, what they have always known and what they have been taught to believe. They hardly even notice when they see themselves being replaced, not least in TV commercials, where progressively the average Briton is portrayed not by a white person, or indeed a black person, but by someone of mixed race, with the subliminal message that this is the new reality they should aspire to.
The outcome is the a flabby, bovine, nation of people who care only for trivia and possessions, who actively believe that the history of their race is shameful, that their country owes a debt of guilt to other nations, and crucially, who do not care if their people were to vanish from the face of the earth.
Worse than that, for many, something in their subconscious tells them it might even be racist to care.
And here I have mentioned the word which has become one of the most deadly weapons used against the European race and the most poisonous agent of their destruction.
“Racist”, that dishonest, multi-purpose, multiple application little word has been used to bully, intimidate and hector our people for decades now as a means of forcing a cynical political agenda upon us which they would never have achieved democratically. We, the most tolerant and benevolent race on Earth, the people least guilty of racial, tribal or xenophobic animus on the planet, have, exclusively, been so terrorised by that little word to the point where we would rather see our own race destroyed than dare be called it.
If any of us do overcome the terror and speak out against the lies, then laws have been set in place enabling the authorities to hunt them down and prosecute them, cheered on by a baying controlled media.
In Britain, and elsewhere in Europe it has now been established in law that telling the truth can be a criminal offence (and we laughably still call ourselves a free society)
It is all now stacked against us. We are the victims of hate don’t you see, we are not, and have never been the main perpetrators.
This is a huge subject, and there is so much more to say. We are assailed on all sides by so many different forces, all seemingly calculated to undermine us as a homogeneous race of people. I could continue for a dozen more postings and still not have covered all issues.
However, I hope that, in these two postings I have been able to demonstrate that over the last half century, measures have been imposed upon the native people of Europe, and, worldwide, upon those of European origin, which fit the internationally accepted definitions of genocide, and which are inextricably leading to the destruction of us as a race. (In some areas, such as South Africa, as I have explained in previous postings we are even further down the blood stained road)
As pointed out in part one of is essay those definitions of genocide are:
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the targeted group
As I have stated, deliberate measures have been put in place intended to prevent births amongst us, and which have successfully prevented many millions of births amongst our people. At the same time, deliberate measures, taken by the same governments, have increased the birthrate of non-Europeans by billions (four billion since 1950).
Whilst their numbers grow, ours are shrinking, taken across the western world this has led to the loss of potential lives among those of European origin greater than any previous world war and previous natural disaster other than possibly the black death in the 14th Century, and certainly greater than any previous genocide.
- Deliberately inflicting on the targeted group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
Mass immigration, never in any state agreed to by democratic vote, is replacing the native peoples of Europe and those of European origin across the planet. Britain and North America are predicted to become majority non-white states at some point between 2050 and 2066, and the same will apply to the rest of Europe, with the possible exception of northern Russia, by the end of the century.
Some would argue that the very replacement of one race or culture with another is an act of genocide in itself. However, in addition, the inevitable mass displacement and interbreeding which is already occurring will further undermine Europeans as a homogeneous ethnic group. (an outcome, some so brainwashed and mired in their foetid ideology actually view as a desirable outcome)
Furthermore, given the evidence that significant numbers of immigrants are actively hostile to the native population and its culture, the effect on the native population when those groups become a majority can only be guessed at .
Meanwhile, for decades now our people have been subject to unremitting indoctrination, propaganda and, many would argue, brainwashing. They have been fed lies and disinformation designed to undermine their sense of identity, their pride in their identity, and ultimately their will to survive as a people.
By means of the above, and many other examples I could point to, conditions have been inflicted upon us which can not fail to bring about our destruction in whole or in part, and, in fact are already doing so.
It is happening, that cannot be denied. I have not made any of this up, I have merely laid the facts before you and the conclusion screams its own name without any prompting from me.
Only two questions remain:
why is it happening? To be truly genocide there needs to be intent. Is there really a mass conspiracy by evil people determined to destroy the white race? The acts are deliberate, but is their inevitable outcome their purpose? Or are there other factors, other agendas and other motives which have brought us to where we are?
It makes little difference to us of course, if you are killed by murder or by manslaughter you are still dead. However, it does change how one judges the perpetrators.
And the most difficult question, what, if anything can be done to change course on what appears to the inevitable road to our destruction?.
I will seek to explore these two questions in the third and final part of this essay.
(2) Prior articles touching on media lies, disinformation and propaganda