Search This Blog

Saturday, 1 January 2011

The UK Genocide by stealth - Part 1

Genocide by stealth - Part 1 PDF Print E-mail
Written by Sarah Albion   
  December 2010
Genocide by StealthIf 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 dependant 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.

Travel with me now gentle reader and I will explain to you why some believe that the greatest act of genocide in human history is currently being attempted, and how that act may already well on its way to being achieved.

First we need to understand what genocide is. Amongst the United Nations definitions of Acts of Genocide 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.

As I type this I can already hear the shrill squawks of derision from the trolls and intellectual pygmies at the left wing forums who monitor this blog from time to time, and, no doubt, some more grown up readers will raise a sceptical eye-brow at the linkage of oral contraception to genocide. However, I would ask you to put your prejudice to one side and consider these things in context. This is but one aspect of many and, when so many coincidences lead in one direction it is hard to ignore a design.

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 (including what might be called the “dump the boyfriend, kill the kid” scenario)

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. As we all know when the media resort to propaganda, they have an agenda.

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? If so, then here is another coincidence.

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?

Whilst our population ages and our birth rate falls, the non-European population of the world is increasing to unsustainable levels

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


Sarah: Maid of Albion