Tuesday, 20 June 2006

Genocide by Stealth

The following essay is taken from the excellent Sarah Maid of Albion blog.

Genocide by Stealth: part one.

"If one were to set out to destroy a race or ethnic group, history offers a selection of options as to how this can be achieved. 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 dependent 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...

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 group. Deliberately 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...

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...

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...

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?...

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 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?...

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. 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."
Part Two

"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...

If the indigenous population of any other region of the world were being deliberately replaced... 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 irradication 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.

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 our 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...

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."
Part three

"In the first two parts of this essay I set out to demonstrate that acts have been committed against the white European race, over the last half century or more, which meet at least two of the definitions of genocide as laid out under Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Measures have been put in place intended to prevent births amongst white Europeans and which have resulted in the termination or prevention of the birth of, at the very least, tens of millions of white children. Taken altogether across the western world, the number of potential births amongst our ethnic group which have been prevented either by chemical means or by active physical intervention is in the hundreds of millions. Meanwhile, conditions of life have been inflicted upon us which are already leading to our destruction, at least in part.

That these acts have been committed, that they were deliberate and are resulting in the outcomes I described in parts one and two is self evidently true. Furthermore, the fact that, in combination theses acts, measures and policies have brought us to the brink of a tipping point beyond which, we cannot, as a people, recover, is also beyond question. They have.
It also can not be denied that, although as a people we, native Europeans, have faced war, famine pestilence and catastrophe we have never before come so close to our own annihilation. What is, however, open to question is why is it happening, who is doing it and what they are actually seeking to achieve.

Up until now I have laid facts before you, however, in an attempt to make sense of those facts I can now only give you my own view, my analysis if you prefer, of what has happened and why.

To the question ‘Is there a conspiracy to destroy the white race?’, I have to say in my view the answer is considerably more complex than some of my fellow travellers would like to believe. What we face is not a single malevolent conspiracy, but a many headed hydra formed of any number aims ambitions, hatreds and ideologies, all of differing degrees of malevolence, which have come together, on the coat tails of a historical conspiracy, to attack us at a time when we are at the least able to defend ourselves.

Not all which has been done has been with malevolent intent, I rather placed my credibility on the line by linking the contraceptive pill to genocide in an earlier part of this essay, and I know that, on at least one of the other sites where my earlier articles have been republished, some people who have not done what I asked, and viewed these things in context, have mocked me for it. I do not necessarily believe that, in isolation, the pill was developed or legalised with the deliberate intention of damaging the native European race. However, I submit that it has done so, and as I stated previously, its introduction on the scene coincided with other factors which in combination have been unremittingly negative.

The pill, together with abortion, and what one might call ‘breeding unfriendly’ changes to the economic model, have not only speeded up the pace of our decline but they have provided succour to attitudes which were most certainly encouraged with malevolent intent. The pill has been used far less to regulate the size of families as it has been used to put off childbirth, often altogether, and that has been of inestimable damage to us, collectively, as a people.

Some of my critics may wish to argue that the decline of the greatest civilisation the world has ever seen is a worthwhile sacrifice in order to enable a rapidly reducing number of individuals to enjoy the transitory pleasures of a child free lifestyle. However, it is for them to make that case, but at this point I do not buy it.

However, in other areas there is no doubt as to the malevolence of the forces ranged against us. Some of the most savagely malign of those forces exist within the arts and academia, where many do not even attempt to disguise their genocidal intent. Who can forget the words of Harvard Professor Noel Ignatiev, (1) author of ‘When the Irish became White’ and co-editor of the ‘Race Traitor’ magazine, when he said: ‘The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists;’ or ‘The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race.’ and of course: ‘we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed--not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.’

Ignatiev is not alone, his brand of poison pervades learning institutions throughout the West. Anyone who followed the attempts to rail-road three innocent lacrosse players at North Carolina's Duke University, following the false rape claims of black ‘exotic dancer’ in 2006 as closely as I did, could not fail to be shocked by the levels of mindless, visceral hatred towards white males which exists within American academia. It would be hard to exaggerate how passionately so many eminent members of the Duke faculty, journalists, media talking heads and so called ‘community organisers’ wanted those boys to be guilty. For many, guilt or innocence was not an issue, they simply craved blood in order to slake their hatred.

However, how is it that the views of such unattractive and ideologically diseased individuals such as Noel Ignatiev and so many members of the Duke faculty have gained such purchase and become so all pervading within Western culture? To find an answer to that question we need ton go back a century and a half, or even more, and there we do find a conspiracy.

The conspiracy against Western Christian/capitalist society began in the 19th Century, if not before. It did not start as a conscious attack on white, Europeans, however, it inevitably became one, initially for no other reason than that Western society was white, European, society.

It is at this point in the narrative that I must nod in the direction of those of my critics who accuse me of being an apologist for Zionism, and admit that it is impossible to ignore the Jewish role in the early efforts to undermine Western Society. Jews featured disproportionately amongst those who took Marxist theory forward and set up the great and deadly Communist monoliths which crushed vast sections of humanity, throughout the twentieth century. A significant majority of those who formed the subversive Frankfurt School of thinking in the 1930's, those who developed critical theory and that most evil and damaging of all ideologies, political correctness were Jewish academics and Jewish political thinkers.

It was by no means exclusively Jewish, but it was overwhelmingly so. It is also impossible to dismiss the current role of Jews within academia not to mention the Jewish anti-white propagandists within the media and, of course Hollywood.

However, although it would be ignorant and dishonest to dismiss the role Jews played in the early efforts to undermine Western society and the role which many eminent Jews still play within the massed ranks ranged against us, it is also possible to overestimate their role. When those within the Nationalist community blame all the attacks on the white European race on the Jews and on some vast Zionist conspiracy they are addressing a single, historical and rapidly shrinking foe, while ignoring many far more vicious and, now more dangerous adversaries.

Marxism is at the root of all our problems and it was those early Marxists, Trotskyites, Stalinists, Maoists and sundry Socialists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries in general certainly who set the great ball of anti-white genocide in motion when they set out to destroy Western Capitalism. However, we are certainly not, today, where they once planned to take us.

I would liken the early communist conspirators, malevolent as they may have been, to a deluded scientist who created a faulty chemical weapon, which once injected into its victim takes on a life of its own, driven on mindlessly by the flaws within its design and independent of the plans of its designer.
Those, including many Jews who conspired against our grandfathers imagined that we would today be living under universal Marxist rule, not that we would be facing the prospect of a Universal Islamic caliphate.

I suspect that were those who first sowed the seeds of our destruction alive today, they would look on in horror at the monster they have created, for it will devour them, and their plans no less ravenously than it will destroy us. At the risk of reigniting the anger of my critics against me, I would argue that, whatever, past difference there may have been, now is the time for Jews, together with gays and true feminists to join with White Nationalists, for it is we, not what is coming to ensure their protection, freedom and very existence.

As I say, the aim was to destroy Western capitalism, but with the demise of what was intended to replace it, the agenda has morphed into the destruction of the European race, and without any other ambition, the destruction has become the purpose rather than merely the agent of change.

Before the fall of the Soviet Union the Marxist cause had made huge advances.
Nobody living in the 1950's or 1960's would have been accused of being a conspiracy theorist had they claimed that there were people within our society working for its destruction, because there were. Communism made no secret of its sworn aim to dominate the world and, unlike with Islam today, there were no politically correct scruples against acknowledging it.

Marxist theory exercises a powerful pull on the hearts and minds of elite Western Intellectuals. Through their compliance over the decades the Soviet system's tentacles gradually infiltrated the West, gaining control within many of our most powerful institutions, most spectacularly within the media and within education, two areas in which they correctly assessed they could do the most damage to the system they were seeking to overthrow.

Having gained control within the two most powerful means of forming opinion, they set about, first gradually, but later more rapidly, indoctrinating the western public with the aim of making them less willing or able to resist their eventual overthrow, whilst simultaneously removing anyone within the targeted organisation who did not share the approved ideology.

The indoctrination was aimed at undermining senses of patriotism and national identity essential to preserving a culture and it took many forms such as the debasing and re-writing of European history, the debasing and trivialising of our culture.

As first this was viewed as a form of class war, where the original targets were the middle and upper classes who would be annihilated when the workers rose against them, as occurred in Russia.

However, outside Russia the class war was abandoned when the white working classes failed to play the role allotted to them and joined the middle classes as targets for destruction. Race became the new weapon in undermining a culture through national guilt. Anti-racism aimed exclusively at the target race and intent upon instilling a sense of of shame and guilt for a past which had, in fact never taken place, exploited a weakness within a tolerant and benevolent people always anxious to do the right thing and protect the underdog. As a consequence, the dishonest drum beat of ‘white oppressor’, ‘black victim’ accompanied by the altogether more sensuous ‘black sexy’, ‘white surrender’ became the constant theme music behind popular culture, throughout the 1960's, 70's and 80's.

This was an even more deadly poison, our enemies knew from history that nothing undermines a society as effectively as does multiculturalism. Hence they cynically recast the melting pot as grail of our age.

Other ‘isms’ were deployed, such as a deceptive form of feminism designed, in the guise of ‘liberation’, to undermine the family whilst imposing a new sexualised slavery upon women, which sold us aspirations which could only be achieved spread legged and child free. At the same time siren voices convinced young women that a life of unnaturally induced sterility, with abortion as a back up, offered the means of achieving fulfilment. It was in this way that developments such as oral contraception, abortion and social change began to become instruments of genocide.

In few areas has the indoctrination designed at the destruction of Western Society been more cruelly effective than what it has done to women. In a few generations a sex which once valued honour, virtue and motherhood, now finds themselves either grasping at the Muslim veil of their own subjugation or, tragically with some merit, viewed as ‘easy meat’ by our nations new colonisers, leaving many of the most vulnerable in huge danger...

Enemies of the West also infiltrated various other areas, such as the law, politics and the security services, but it was within education and within the popular media that they seized their most powerful weapons, and they have used them against us relentlessly for at least half a century. The people responsible for this did not go away when Communism fell, the aim of overthrowing the West and replacing it with a soviet style utopia was no longer an option, but that did not change the aim of overthrowing the West. Indeed, as the years had past a new more anarchistic breed had joined the old Stalinist, for whom the destruction of the West was more important than any subsequent reconstruction.

They had been well schooled in the belief that the West was evil and needed to be destroyed and they saw nothing within the demise of communism to change that belief. Hence they have continued with their mission of undermining our culture, indoctrinating our people and nurturing new generations of indoctrinators. However, the emphasis had changed, Western society could no longer be destroyed by soviet communism, so anti-racism, multiculturalism and immigration, tools so long used as a means of softening up the culture for its eventual take over, would now become the means of its destruction.

However, we have still but touched on half the picture, acts have consequences which are not always anticipated. A one hundred and fifty year old conspiracy aimed at the converting the capitalist West to Marxism had developed into an exercise of ethnic and cultural cleansing.

In the process Western society's resolve and sense of its own identity had become so undermined that other groups with other even less wholesome aims and agendas began to smell blood in the water, and they in turn began to close in on a weakening prey."
Part four

"When I started writing this essay I had not fully appreciated quite how complex it would be or quite how much there was to say. The more one peels away at the various layers, schemes, lies and agendas, it becomes frighteningly clear quite how all consuming the assault upon the white race has been, quite how many enemies we have and how long they have been at work.

Here I must, again, repeat the warning I have given before. We make a fatal mistake if we only see one enemy amongst the legion closing in around us. Yes there were Zionist Jews amongst them, and there certainly still are some, but they are not alone, and in truth they never have been. We will die by many other swords if chose to only fight against a single foe, especially as there are now far greater dangers than those still posed, or maybe ever posed, by Zion. We have many other enemies, and amongst them some, the most deadly, hate us mostly for the good that we have done.

We are paying the penalty for having been the most successful, the richest, the most creative, the most powerful and, indeed the most benevolent civilisation to have ever bestrode our Earth. We are unmatched in history, and I suspect that we will never be equalled. We are resented not, as some would have it for the alleged crimes of our race, but for what we are, for what we have achieved, for the good we have brought to the world, and there are many who can never forgive us for it.

Our enemies point to wars and weapons, but ignore our role in spreading education, justice, health care, technology, benevolence and humanity to the darkest corners of our planet. They blame us for crimes, such as slavery, which every other people also committed but which we alone are honest enough to acknowledge, and which we alone fought to bring to an end.

We are also paying for our good nature, we are accused of sins which the rest of the world commit with far more ferocity than we do. If you wish to see prejudice and discrimination go to Asia, the Indian sub-continent in particular and you will find it in every street in every village. For cruelty and bigotry go to the middle east. For homophobia and hate crimes the options start before Iran and end beyond Angola to the south and Malaysia to the east. For racism, in its most blood thirsty of forms try anywhere in black ruled Africa and you will find it there far more ancient and at least as cruel as anything ever seen in Europe.

Yet it is we who, though our good will carry guilt for that of which we are no more guilty than any other and for which, in many cases, we are the least to blame.

We allow this to happen in some measure because a flaw in our racial character whereby we are more modest and generous than is good for us. However, in greater part we carry that guilt because we have been taught to do so through the decades of indoctrination which I described earlier, in part three of this essay.

Initially that indoctrination, together with so much else was aimed at undermining our society, however, over the years the aims have metamorphosed into something far more based on animus and iconoclasm than it is on ideology. The aim is no longer merely the destruction of our society and has become the destruction of us as a people.

As a people we have been worn down and weakened to the point where we have allowed others who hate us to come amongst and some now mingle amongst those who rule us and have been granted positions of power. Black and Asian racists have become journalists, commentators, politicians and lawyers, they sit in parliament, on Quangos, governmental bodies within our courts, our education system, within the plethora of so called human rights organisations or as political agitators. They have their own agendas, and I challenge you to point to any who work for the well being of the indigenous white population.

If anyone reading this truly believes that the likes of Trevor Philips, Diane Abbot, Keith Vaz, Darcus Howe, Bonnie Greer, Tariq Ali, Weyman Bennett, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, or even the sainted Shami Chakrabarti, care for the future of the native British people and have not used their privileged positions within our society to advance the interests of their own races over those of our race, I really suggest you are perhaps to naïve to be abroad unchaperoned at this most deadly of times.

The elevation of such people for the sake of diversity has not improved our country, it has further undermined it, for they are, quite naturally working in the interests of their own races, which is something we, as Europeans, are no longer permitted to do.

However, there are some amongst them and among the legion of of our treacherous white enemies who are working to advance a cause far more malign and infinitely more deadly than anything which has threatened Europe in almost four hundred years.

Islam, the blood thirsty and repressive ideology which has threatened Western Civilisation for fourteen hundred years is back in the ascendant after a period of relative calm, and it is as poisonous now as it ever was.

The latest rise of Islam came quickly, coinciding with the fall of the last great threat to the west, the cold war, a coincidence among many which we ignore at our peril. Of course, Islam has threatened us before, many times, but this time it is different, this time the enemy is not at the gate it is already living within the castle walls. This time they are amongst us and we will not be fighting them at our borders, but on our streets. And we have allowed it. We are the first civilisation in history who have meekly opened our gates and permitted those who actively call for our demise to come amongst us, and in many areas moved without resistance when they drove us from our homes.

The race which gave the world so much is now so meek, so broken, so deluded it has ushered its assassins into its own home, whilst all but handing them the weapons with which to dispatch us. So brainwashed are we now that we would first condemn those of us who warn of the danger before we face the threat.

I fear we are not the West we were, no longer those who fought World War II, and that we may not the same people. Unfortunately for us, the east is still the same east which fought our Crusaders nine hundred years ago, but better armed and better placed.

Islam it seems is now in a better position to deliver the final blows of our destruction than even the old soviet union ever was. Our ancient adversary has been imported back by our modern foes to deliver the coup de grâce when we are at our lowest, our numbers diminished, our spirit broken, our history lost and our lands invaded.

Is there any hope for us, what can we do? is there any way back?... Some look to the future and see a civil war, but that is not the answer, certainly its not the answer now. The time may come when war is inevitable, it will be imposed upon us and by then it may be too late. Before then, with all that is ranged against us we could not win a civil war fought now. Violence is not the answer and all those who have tried it so far have failed and have merely made our situation worse.

It would be nice to think that democracy held our a chance of salvation, and it would if it was possible to get elected, however, the controlled media make that almost impossible. Were any nationalist to stand the remotest chance of winning a national election, the press would turn on him or her in a manner which would make the assault on Sarah Palin in 2008 look positively gentle, and the lies would be even more outrageous.

Media lies continue to hamper the BNP's efforts to get elected, and the corrupt media would bury any individual nationalist who appeared capable of overcoming that barrier in a landslide of lies. We have not had an honest media in the west for decades, every news reporter lies constantly and with the accustomed ease of an aged harlot relieving a drunken businessman of his wallet. Every presenter or dramatist has become a propagandist and every commentator an advocate. Even those who are secretly sympathetic to our cause must deny us and lie about us for they would never work again if they did not.

This is the barrier we must overcome to succeed. If we could achieve that we might be granted one last grasp at our salvation. for it is in breaching the shark infested moat of lies that we find both our answer and also our greatest dilemma.

The... most fatal blow ever struck against the white European race was when our advocates lost control of the main means of mass communication to our enemies, and is only by winning that control back that we can effectively start to fight back. It is through the mass media and what currently passes for education that our enemies are waging their war against us and it is because of their total control of both that they are winning. When the left gained control of the means of broadcasting news, and, in many ways more crucially, broadcasting entertainment, they gained control of the most powerful weapon known to man, a weapon which enabled them to change attitudes, form views and beliefs and create new truths.

For over 50 years the left have controlled what we know and equally what we don't know. The have told us their truth about history, about Communism, their truth about Viet Nam, about crime, about race and right now we are being told their truth about the uprisings in the Middle East.

Far more deadly even than the ability to distort news coverage has been the overwhelming control which the left have over entertainment, drama, culture and the visual depiction of history, it is through these medium that the last two generations have been taught what to think and what to believe.

The left make TV shows, we don't, the left make movies, we don't, they tell teenagers what music to like and adults what books to read, and whilst we do not do these things, they, our enemies, have a huge, and deadly, advantage over us.

The only mass communication means we have of getting our message out is via the internet, but, valuable tool as it is, we have restricted ourselves to serious political sites, forums and blogs where we debate serious issues amongst ourselves. We don't go where the young folk go, and when we try, we get thrown out because we don't know how to behave.

That is not to say that people are not doing great things via the internet, the latest exposé (1) of NPR (US National Public Radio) by James O'Keefe is a further example of brilliant investigative journalism by a man, who in an honest world be in line for a major journalism award, however, because the left control what people are allowed to know, only a tiny number of people ever get to see his work.

We must take back the media or find a new means of mass communication, and we must learn how to communicate in a way that people beyond the narrow sphere of nationalism understand respond to and enjoy. These are our enemy's weapons and we must learn to use them against them. We must rediscover the power of ridicule, the lampoon brought down the Bourbon kings and the Romanov tzars.

In our own time, mockery became Sarah Palin's greatest liability, but it, could have done the same to Obama had the Right known how to deploy it, sadly we didn't.

To the more high minded reader it may seem bizarre to suggest fighting genocide with humour or through entertainment, yet these are the tools which our adversaries have used so effectively. We need to get the truth out, and sadly a joke or a wacky video will get to far more people, and will be responded to by far more people, than any number of serious articles like this one. That's how the left do it.

Being able to communicate with the wider public directly is vital, after all what is the point to anything we do if either nobody knows about it, or if those who report it lie? Before they can save themselves the European people need to realise what is being done to them, and they will not awake until they hear our voice.

We must find a means of communication which enables us to break though the iron curtain of lies which the corrupt media and our equally corrupt leaders have spent the last fifty years constructing and expose the truth to the wider world. How we can break our enemy's grasp on the communications media I do not know, but I know we must find a way, for it may be our last chance of salvation.

I believe it will happen, who would have thought even ten years ago that, sitting in my own home, I could write something, press a button and reach thousands of people in an instant...

In the meantime there is something we can all do and that is to enlighten someone, even if you only awaken one person to the truth, then there are two of you, and that way leads to thousands. We do not need a majority to change the world, only enough to be heard, and then we'll have a majority.

If you do not have the words yourself use other people's words, there are great writers who's words we must spread to those who remain blind to what is happening. On this blog we have Mister Fox, August Pointneuf, Robin Hind, Reconquista (how I wish I could convince him to start writing again) Tim Hayden, Dr. D, Alan O'Reilly and others, please spread their words.

We also have the great Frank Ellis, not only a brilliant academic and a superb writer but a man with the authority to command attention he is a man able to change minds. For instance, Frank's outstanding letter to David Cameron, published here last month, briefly went viral on the internet, it can do so again and it can get to a wider audience. Copy it, link to it, send it on, people need to read his words. This is something we can all do.

Here is the link from this blog: Response to Cameron by Dr Frank Ellis

And from the British Resistance: Response to Cameron

We are the descendants of the greatest achievers, the greatest thinkers, the greatest scientists and the greatest pioneers this world has ever seen. We share the genes of the greatest writers, the greatest artists, musicians and inventors. Our forefathers spread knowledge, technology and enlightenment to the most benighted corners of this planet. We alone ended slavery, we alone reached the moon, we discovered the cures for many of the great plagues and diseases which have blighted mankind for millennia and are working with others now to eradicate more.

At the root of 99% of all the great inventions from which the world now benefits you will find a person of European blood. We conquered the sea, the sky, outer space and the very airways.

For every bomb we built we made ten million pills to cure twenty thousand diseases. We are the most benevolent race on earth, the main givers to charity, the majority of all fund raisers, aid workers and philanthropists. Our race has done more good in this word than any other yet born, and we must not die...

Against the most vicious enemies and the most terrifying odds we can find a way to save our race, we have the ingenuity, we have the ability, if only we can make our people see the truth."


  1. When you write "This will have resulted from a deliberate policy, which was never put to a vote" this is not quite true. The 1948 British Nationalities act gave dual citizenship to everyone in the Commonwealth and it did later lead to net immigration of 50 - 60,000. The deception is that the intention to flood Britain with economic migrants was concealed and this law was not part of Labour's election manifesto.

  2. Though I take your point re. the 1948 British Nationalities Act, it was hardly voted upon. I don't think the fact that Labour was about to open the floodgates appeared anywhere in the 1945 Manifesto.

    The essay isn't mine by the way.