It may not have escaped you that we are living in a time where we (that is to say white European natives) are fast approaching a critical point relating to our place, and possibly even our very existence, on Earth.
Before us lie two paths; the first consists of our gradual succumbing and submission to the relentless waves of Third World immigration, the second, our return to national pride and reinstatement as the dominant demographic in our respective countries in all things ideological, political, economic and social.
With this in mind, one may well conclude that it is up to nationalist political leaders who represent our interests to lead the way and herald the dawn of a new era, whereby we follow the second of the two aforementioned paths, and are not misled down the first.
Thus, if we are putting (most of) of our hope in the democratic process, and victory of nationalist parties across Europe, one may well ask the question why nationalist political parties have not (sufficiently) highlighted the issue of White Genocide (it may well be worth reading the article entitled ‘What Is White Genocide – A Thorough Explanation’ if you are unfamiliar with the term and what it signifies).
Does this issue require more political attention? If so, then why do we not hear of it more?
To attempt an answer, a tried and tested method is the analysis and evaluation of a case study. For this purpose, the French Front National will serve as the main (but not sole) example and will therefore be the focus of this article, along with the context in which it finds itself.
The Case Study – Vive le Front National ! Vive la République ! Vive la France !
Although an extensive introduction to France’s number one patriotic, nationalist party is hardly required, a quick overview of the main opposition to the French political establishment parties would not go amiss.
Founded by Jean-Marie Le Pen in 1972, and currently directed by his daughter Marine, the Front National is a law-and-order, conservative and nationalist political party in France. With over 80,000 members and higher poll ratings than the party has ever experienced before, it is no coincidence that electoral success is becoming a habit with the Front National in this day and age.
The party’s anti-immigration, pro-economic protectionism, pro-national sovereignty policies have seen it catapulted from being the meagre political offshoot of a fringe movement (‘Ordre Nouveau’), to becoming the primary embodiment of patriotic and nationalist sentiment in France. So much so that Jean-Marie famously came second in the 2002 presidential elections and Marine is predicted to muster even more electoral support in her bid to become the leader and representative of France in 2017.
Why The Topic Of White Genocide Is Important
For most of us, this isn’t really a question. We know that any genocide is morally reprehensible and it is our inherent nature that drives us to deplore it in any form. The notable examples in history are generally met with revulsion; the Holocaust, the genocide of Tibetans, the Afrikaner-Boer genocide, etc, etc, etc.
Ask anybody whether a race or indigenous group of people(s) should be wiped out, either suddenly or over the long-term, and, for the most part at least, the answer should be a resounding no. Even those who are unable to articulate why they feel this way still know that genocide is pretty much an absolute evil. Whether this sense of right and wrong is the result of religious teachings, scientific or historical analysis, personal experience, etc, is largely irrelevant.
It is perhaps mostly for this contingent – those who have not had to purposefully structure an argument or framework of thought regarding White Genocide – that this section has been written.
Firstly, if genocide generally is to be opposed then, purely by definition, this means White Genocide is to be prohibited. Therefore, if it is in progress (and the evidence to date clearly underlines that it is in many European countries) this would make it an important problem in need of solving.
The right to self-determination for all ethnic groups without fear of invasion and genocide is universal and is set out in the UN Convention. If we adhere strictly to the UN convention’s definition of the term genocide, then one can reasonably argue that the mass substitution of White Europeans via successive waves of immigration, in tandem with other factors such as the promotion of lifestyles that promote consumerism and disfavour child rearing, are tantamount to attempted genocide. If we reach this conclusion, then it is logical that such factors should be opposed. So far, nationalist parties seem to follow this path of reasoning but generally do not see it through to the end. That is to say, they oppose mass immigration, debt fuelled consumerism, globalism, etc, but do not state that the ultimate aim is to save the White native European population. Those willing to go a bit farther may mention ‘Western Civilisation’ or ‘Western Culture’ (such as Donald Trump) or European culture and Christian heritage (such as Orbán in Hungary) but typically, nationalist parties have so far side-stepped addressing this issue directly.
If we take our case study example of the Front National, Jean-Marie Le Pen had repeatedly addressed the subject of ‘Le Grand Remplacement’ (‘The Big Substitution’) and would quote statistics illustrating that the White European natives would soon be replaced as a result of their low birth-rate (Jean-Marie gives the following figures: 6 billion non-Europeans with an average age of 20 years and a birth rate of 3-5 children per female, 735 million Europeans with an average age of 45 years and a birth rate of 1.4 children per female). However, Jean-Marie has since been virtually forcibly ejected from his party (for comments relating to the occupation of France during the Second World War and the prevention of historical investigation into the Holocaust in case it counters the current narrative). Florian Philipot, vice president in charge of strategy and communication for the Front National, has since stated he does not use the term ‘Grand Remplacement’ as it is too vague and the topic is now largely left alone by the party. We will look at reasons for this in the section below entitled ‘The Difficulties’.
Secondly, White Genocide is a theme worthy of political attention as the precedent it would set if executed fully could potentially be incredibly detrimental to other groups in the future.
So far, the most recent examples of large-scale genocide have been met with indignation and horror (see some mentioned previously). However, White Genocide is particular in that it has been brought on under the guise of ‘enrichment’ and ‘diversity’ and is being enacted over the long-term. Should this strategy prove successful in the years to come, it could inspire others in power with genocidal tendencies to follow suit.
The human population of Earth has increased exponentially over the last few decades and as countries and ethnic groups vie for power and resources, the eradication of the White race may be used as a blueprint for other similar atrocities in the future.
Finally, turning back to the ideas of cultural and ethnic diversity; the hypocrisy of those who tout these concepts as positive things, whilst facilitating the displacement and replacement of White people, is nothing short of tragic.
They fail to see that the Earth is already a rich and diverse place. It is home to many different ethnicities, civilisations, cultures and languages. Guaranteeing a homeland for these means ensuring their existence, thus maintaining the planet’s assortment of peoples as there is always a source for each in case of war, famine, natural disaster, etc. Phasing one race of people out under the false song of diversity is as ironic as it is disturbing.
Humanity needs its different groups, with their dissimilar cultures, institutions, languages, traditions, etc, to provide varying social perceptions on a plethora of different questions facing us whether they be engineering related, scientific, natural, cosmic or otherwise. We work best when different people come together and share ideas that are a result of their background and identities. Blending us all together means we lose these different perceptions that are crafted from our respective cultures, histories, etc, as these dissipate into the melting pot of multiculturalism.
So why do nationalist political parties seem to avoid tackling the issue of White Genocide head on?
Unfortunately, the answers are several and assorted in nature.
Alienation would be the primary and most obvious reason. Sadly, it is now the case that if a nationalist focuses too much on the topic of race, it alienates large swathes of the population thus hindering its capacity to change national legislature.
Third World populations in European countries now represent rather substantial electorates. Their voting power is seen as such a bonus that certain parties, such as the Socialist party in France actively grants citizenship to immigrants in order to bolster its voting numbers (equally the case with the Labour party in the UK when it was in power). This, coupled with White Europeans who support the regressive left and believe in the lie of cultural enrichment means that by focusing on too narrow a subject, nationalist parties risk alienating too many categories of potential voters. Hence why they prefer concentrating on broader topics such as immigration in general and its economic and social impacts.
Furthermore, in the case of the Front National, they must be able to reach Catholic communities, monarchists, republicans, atheists, Gaullists and many other diverse (and potentially opposing groups) in order to secure electoral gains. The hope is that these people can put their differences aside to solve the much bigger problem of White Genocide (or at least massive Third World immigration) together.
Another factor prohibiting the broaching of White Genocide as a political matter by nationalist parties is the vast propaganda machine that is instantly thrown into gear whenever such a party shows any sign of success.
Propaganda from a combination of organisations (such as ‘SOS Racisme’ in France), mainstream media (who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo – one need only look at the deluge of anti-Trump stories pushed by the mainstream press in America whilst they largely ignore or dismiss the Clintons’ indiscretions) and the other political parties themselves can be quite difficult to merely shrug off.
‘Echoes of WWII’ or ‘harkening to the atrocities of Europe’s darkest days’ are strong emotional offenses led by those opposing nationalist ideals as they attempt to tie self-determination and survival of our people to the horrifying wretchedness of the Second World War.
This is the reason Jean-Marie Le Pen was excluded from his own party; he made the organisation too vulnerable to attack by dredging up the past even though his comments would have been perfectly innocuous coming from somebody on the left.
The concept of White Genocide can too easily be portrayed as extreme or sensationalist by large media organisations or political parties who will even go as far as to manipulate statistics in order to reassure the white voting public. Here, sudden mass immigration is a double-edged sword as although it may provide the left with votes, it shatters the illusion that it is only a few refugees escaping from war-torn countries and who are ready to assimilate that are coming over.
Perhaps a less important, though still considerable factor, is the tendency by political opposition to nationalist parties to paint them as ‘one-issue parties’.
Although not an ethno-nationalist party (rather, a civic nationalist one) UKIP in the UK has faced this obstacle repeatedly; because they are painted as focusing entirely on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, the argument that they lack substance in any other domains (economic policy is typically cited here) is constantly hurled their way.
Contexts related to the different European nations may also throw up some difficulties for nationalist parties and their ability to address the issue of White Genocide. For example, the French constitution does not recognise different ethnicities. Under the French Republic, every person with French citizenship is French, no questions asked. This has recently been highlighted by ex-president of France Nicolas Sarkozy’s declaration that all French citizens share the same ancestors (namely, the Gauls). Anybody with half a brain would find the idea that a coloured individual hailing from Africa has a white Gaul ancestor laughable. However, such are the times in which we find ourselves…
Finally, it is not uncommon for populations to be disillusioned with governments following years of nepotism, self-interest, corruption, scandal, political fall-outs and other embarrassments now often associated with our politicians.
If political parties are perceived negatively by the public (that power corrupts and that all politicians are the same), they may ask themselves why a nationalist party would be any different.
This could be an opportunity.
Nationalist politicians and members of nationalist parties (in fact, all nationalists!) need to make it clear that they are different. Their traditionalist values, alongside their national pride should help ensure that they behave appropriately, putting the future of their own people before all personal ambition (or even making such a future their primary ambition).
Easy; don’t be like those that have led us to where we are today.
It is understandable that (nationalist) parties may choose a tactical approach before an election and want to play it safe, but it should not be a long-term approach. Bringing up the subject of White Genocide, and pointing out the fact that we are becoming a minority in our own countries (which is morally wrong), in the political sphere lends it legitimacy (even if it is just those considered as ‘far-right thinking’ doing so). If we are going to have any hope of solving these issues any time soon we must be able to talk about them.
Back to our case study, those in the Front National (and elsewhere) may question why White Genocide should be talked about at all if it could negatively impact on their vote count or open them up to more attacks vis-à-vis racism and extremism. Our response here is clear: if we cannot discuss this subject, then how do we intend to solve it? Preventing genocide is, after all, the morally correct thing to do. If this topic is touched upon in a non-aggressive manner, whereby the emphasis is on the chance for Whites to live on into the future, rather than advanced as an ‘anti’ concept (anti-immigrant, anti-government policy, etc) then this helps prevent combative reactions from others who may otherwise violently oppose such notions without thinking them through. In fact, if the opposition follow the ‘pro-white survival’ argument logically and reasonably, they will inevitably arrive at the conclusion themselves that curbs on immigration and political correctness are inevitable (if they wish to prevent genocide) rather than having this fed to them. Convincing them, on the other hand, that White Genocide is real and a distinct threat to humanity may be a whole different matter… For this, diligent and in-depth research is required and this can often be difficult itself due to its ‘taboo’ nature (especially in France where French law decrees that all French citizens are French by default – see below – and, as such, does not allow categorisation of its citizens by ethnicity).
Nationalist parties should not dilute their ideals to the point where they become meaningless just to attract increased support. This is a difficult strategy given the problem of increased immigration detailed above. However, as the situation worsens, so too will the tide turn.
So Where Are We Now?
The increased support for Nationalist parties across Europe is a sign of hope. Attitudes are changing and slanders such as ‘racist’, ‘xenophobe’, ‘fascist’, etc, are losing their potency as they are bandied about and applied to anybody who questions the established narrative that immigration can only be positive.
The young also seem to be waking up to the realities of White Genocide. In France, several nationalist groups for the young are beginning to establish themselves (a notable example being ‘Génération Identitaire’ which has chapters in several European countries). In fact, it could be said that the ‘Alt-Right’ (the alternative right in America which, by and large, accepts the fact of White Genocide) is one of the main driving forces behind Donald Trump’s ascendance to the head of the Republican Party and his bid for presidency.
Eastern European countries are trailblazing on the issue of White Genocide by refusing EU migrant quotas. Although nationalist parties in these countries base their message and rhetoric more on western civilisation and culture then race and ethnicity (most likely for the reasons outlined above), it is only logical to assume they acknowledge the concept of White Genocide as civilisation and culture stem from racial homogeneity.
Admittedly, it was a shame that the referendum held in Hungary on EU migrant quotas was invalid due to a turn-out rate just below the required 50% however, 98.3% of those who voted chose to oppose the quotas. This in itself is reason to hope for change.
Ultimately, it is the author’s belief that White Genocide will become an unavoidable issue that will become less and less taboo as the European situation worsens.
An important element in ensuring the successful turnaround of the crisis is European unity; we need each other to maintain our identities as our alliances assure trade and exchange of ideas which allow us to live and share in a common bond.
If a handful of countries can accept nationalism as the solution to our current respective struggles, then perhaps this will set the ball rolling. All eyes will be on America and France in 2016 and 2017 respectively.
Finally, there are many of us who are left concerned with present policies that are forcing our people into a minority position in our own homelands, whilst few dissenting voices are being heard in the political domain that would otherwise openly rail against the current situation. If we hope to change that we must all do our part. The time to talk about these moral issues is now.