Clarifying the term “genocide”
We have previously written about various ways the term “genocide” can be defined. In short, it doesn’t matter how or why you try to get rid of a group of people (or part of it), it is still regarded as an act of genocide according to international law. In other words, genocide doesn’t have to involve violence like many people think (such as the direct act of killing a collective group of people).
Among the various definitions of genocide, the one most relevant to us is section three in article two: “(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”, as this is something that is currently happening in all Western countries in relation to the fact that we have an ongoing non-stop third world immigration policy in all and only white majority countries to the extent that whites are becoming a minority in their own countries. Not to mention the act of forced integration and assimilation and demonizing anyone who is in opposition of such policies.
If this is a topic that is still unfamiliar to you, we can recommend you to read this article first before you read on.
Intentional vs unintentional
As for the act of commiting genocide, there are of course many historical examples one can look at and learn from. Some of them have been carried out intentionally of course (such as the Cambodian genocide in the 70s), but mostly it has been an indirect result or consequence of (long-term) conquest, which is perhaps the most common act of genocide throughout history.
It was probably never the intention of the early European settlers to commit genocide of the Indians. They were interested in acquiring resources and lands to farm, which in time (along with the spread of deadly diseases) consequently lead to the replacement of the native North and South American populations, i.e. genocide.
Same thing happened in many other parts in the world, as all peoples on Earth have conquered other lands and tribes sometime in the past. The people now known as Japanese conquered their land from the Ainu-people, which are now more or less extinct. The land now known as Turkey used to be the land of ancient Greeks and Romans (Troy was located in today’s Turkey and Istanbul used to be called Constantinople – the capital of the Eastern Roman empire).
Many more examples exist of course and this is just to name a few. This phenomenon is nothing new in historical contexts and as previously mentioned every people on Earth are guilty of it. After all it’s not like present day countries or borders exist as a result of coincidence or appeared from nothing.
How is this comparable to today’s situation?
As previously mentioned, we often associate the term “genocide” with directly killing masses of people with the conscious intention of destroying them, but the term can have many definitions as we have previously pointed out.
In our examples above, we gave some examples of how the act of genocide has been carried out indirectly through long-term conquests and assimilation, and there are parallels that can be drawn to the situation in Europe/Western countries today.
Just as the Europeans that were migrating to America a long time ago most likely did not have the intention to take the land away from Indians, the same is probably true for the migrants that are coming into Europe today. While a few of them might have the intention to conquer in mind (radical islamists for example), most immigrants that are moving to Europe do not. They simply seek a better life for themselves and are not thinking in terms of conquest or taking the land away from Europeans.
Having said that, this will still be the consequence though if present policies continue and they become the new majority/dominant population in our countries (as history has shown us). Especially if we are all forced to blend and become assimilated into an indistinguishable melting pot.
Even though similar things have happened in the past, our situation today is quite unique as it is so extreme. We have only had an open border policy into the West for a few decades and we whites are already becoming a minority within a couple of decades in most Western countries. White Brits are already a minority in London and whites are even a minority among national births in the US. What would usually take hundreds of years now only takes a few decades due to globalism.
Of course, the fact that we whites/Europeans are becoming a minority in our own countries is not (yet) acknowledged as genocide yet by the majority of the population. And that’s partly because of ignorance and partly because of the anti-white mindset which is rooted in our present-day society. Many of today’s anti-whites are actually justifying these immigration policies by pointing to historical examples in order to make us feel guilty (everyone knows about “white guilt”), and to make us accept current anti-white policies.
Their point is that we whites have done bad/similar things in the past and basically have what is coming to us.
Our point, on the other hand, is that even if we were to acknowledge the fact that whites have done bad things in the past and are as guilty as any other people when it comes to conquest and committing direct and indirect acts of genocide, it still doesn’t justify these policies today. Why? Because one genocide does not justify another. Two wrongs do not make a right.
As pointed out above, every people have conquered another nation sometime in history. Even though the Japanese are historically guilty of genocide, nothing would justify a Japan without Japanese people today. And no one would argue today that Turks have to accept their people becoming a minority and being targeted of genocide because they conquered the lands from the native population in that region.
After all, we can’t really generalize and blame them for the deeds of their ancestors, right? That wouldn’t make sense.
So the same principle should apply to us. Or are we less worthy to live on because we are White? Of course not, only a person with an anti-white mindset would believe such a thing.