NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
The word genocide invokes a vision of heaps of dead bodies in a pit. Many people are confused by the mantra because of this stereotype, its been played out so often in the news media and hollywood. The state sponsored policy of multicultrialism, non white emigration, IS a form of genocide, it IS directed against white nations and only white nations with low birth rates. The indigenous peoples of the white nations are forced to accept this distructive immigration, hate laws have been passed into law that are used to silence the opposition to multicultrialsm, it IS state sponsored genocide. Every white nation today, will have a brown skin majortiy in the near future, whites who interbreed with dark skin citizens will have dark skin offspring, a few generations of this and the white minotities will be bred out of existence, this IS racial genocide.
Comment by Alan B.
#1 by Al Parker on 11/09/2006 - 2:36 am
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
Yeah, that is the first or second thing that you notice when reading the mantra for the first time. I think I read somewhere on this blog that what the mantra speaks about fits the UN definition of genocide.
I’m following the thread papillion posted. Very hard on the BNP up to my reading at page 8. I see we got some of our people in there. The mantra has really changed the tone of the discussion. Now they are trying to deny that we are victims, rather than asserting that we are victimizers.
#2 by Stevenp on 11/09/2006 - 6:32 pm
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
The term genocide, though accurate, is too strong.
Displacing a people against their will by flooding their lands with competing groups qualifies as a constructive section C genocide under Article 2 of the Genocide Convention of 1948. A possible additional violation is forcible denial of group representation since whites – and only whites – aren’t allowed to organize as whites under penalty of soft-persecution for “racism”.
The problem is that most people assume all genocides are section A (killing) or B (terror) genocides because they associate the term with extreme violence. So you talk about genocide and people look around for evidence of massive carnage, find none and conclude you’re being alarmist. The only way around this is to bore them to tears by first discussing international treaties and the three non-vioent genocide categories [C (resource denial),D (mass sterilization) and E (child takings)]. Folks… this is too complicated.
Personally, I no longer use the term “genocide”. Back when I used to my wife picked up on it and started using it herself. One day I watched as a leftie got her all defensive by telling her she was exagerating. I didn’t like that – watching her trying to justify her claim was painful. She doesn’t know the details of the Genocide Convention of 1948 and besides why should she? I felt responsible for her embarassment because she trusts my choice of language. I haven’t used the term “genocide” since. I now use “racial engineering experiments on whites” – it isn’t only hard to argue with, but sounds so eerie and makes its proponents sound so evil that it’s practically a self contained argument in and of itself.
Getting the terminology right is critical because all identity politics is grievance politics. No grievance, no identity politics. Ever heard blacks discussing group interests without invoking slavery? Ever heard Jews discussing group interests without invoking the Holocaust? Neither have I.
Genocide is our grievance. But we need the right terminology (label) to communicate it outside of our tiny circles.
Possible alternatives:
“racial engineering experiment”
“race replacement”
“reverse colonization”
“white dispossession” (source: Pat Buchanan)
“ethnic submersion” (source: Dalai Lama)
“cultural genocide” (source: Dalai Lama)
“soft genocide”
“slow motion genocide”
“constructive section C genocide”
“constructive violations of Article 2(c) of the Genocide Convention of 1948”
Examples:
“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing racial engineering experiment against my people, white people, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”
“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of race replacement against my people, white people, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”
“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing constructive violations of Article 2(c) of the Genocide Convention of 1948 against my people, white people, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”
Note: “constructive” is a legal term that means “equivalent to”
Stevenp
GENOCIDE CONVENTION OF 1948
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.
Article 1
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article 3
The following acts shall be punishable:
* (a) Genocide;
* (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
* (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
* (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
* (e) Complicity in genocide.
Article 4
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.