In the first part of this essay I argued that vast social changes resulting from deliberate acts by the governments of Europe and all other, one time white, Western nations have succeeded in meeting at least one of the United Nations definitions of what constitutes an act of genocide against an ethnic group.
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
Greeks build barrier on border with Turkey to keep out migrants