What is “White Genocide” – A Thorough Explanation
An audio version is now available of this article for those who prefer that option, which can be found here.
“White genocide” is a term that is receiving greater attention lately in media and in online communities, but not everyone fully understands its meaning. We have recently written an article that touches upon this subject, but this article aims to explain this term in more detail in order to provide a better understanding of the phenomenon of White genocide.
But before we go on to define White genocide, let us take a look at the actual definition of genocide and how it came to be.
The term “genocide”, which many of us take for granted today, actually did not exist before 1944, until it was coined by a man with the name of Raphael Lemkin. The purpose was to define violent crimes committed against various groups of people in our societies with the intent to cause harm to that specific group of people, as there was a growing need to articulate and define Human rights after the events of World War 2, and it became imperative to ensure the rights of individuals and groups alike.
The word “genocide” has been quite effectively established since then, and today most people think they know the definition of “genocide”. Ask a person what it means and they would most likely tell you that it is simply an act of killing a group of people with the purpose of destroying them with the means of violent bloodshed. However, the term is much more complex than that, which becomes clear if you actually read the definition as presented in the UN international Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crime of Genocide.
What does the UN convention say about genocide?
As stated in article number two in the genocide convention:
Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
When reading the actual article, it becomes evident that there are several definitions within the term “genocide”. According to Raphael Lemkin, who is responsible for the legal definition of the word used today, it does not matter how you try to eliminate a national, ethnical, racial or religious group of people, or even individuals belonging to such groups, it is still regarded as genocide:
Genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation . . . It is intended to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.
Yet most people are only familiar with point (a) Killing members of the group. This is the most common definition and is probably the only one most people are familiar with. But let’s take a look at the other points as well in context to current global policies.
If we look at Western countries we can indeed see traces of point (b), (d) and not to mention (c). Regarding point (b) in Western White countries, the phenomenon of cultural Marxism has without doubt caused mental harm to our people. For generations, our people have been taught that we have a collective guilt as White people, and that we are responsible for most of the world’s problems in one way or another. We are encouraged to feel ashamed of ourselves and of our history and ancestry. We Whites are the only ones that are told that we should be punished for historical acts of slavery or conquest, as if we are exclusively responsible for the past deeds of our ancestors or were exclusively the only peoples on Earth who committed such deeds in the past. Belief systems such as these have left our people brainwashed to be indifferent to our extinction, and today many of our people suffer from an anti-White mentality.
As for point (d), it can be argued that even this point is relevant today considering the norm of free abortion. Today, it is not unusual for Western women to use abortion as a form of birth control. Regardless of what your opinions are on the matter, the results of the matter (as well as other factors) have led to a very low birth rate among us Whites. Instead of having more children, we expect immigrants to replace our decreasing population and our diminishing workforce.
In any case, it is the point (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, that is the main aspect of “White genocide”.
If we observe what is happening in the Western world, we can witness that there is in fact a policy of non-stop massive Third World immigration into all White countries and only White countries. These open border policies which will lead to a White minority in our countries, combined with forced assimilation and legally forcing White areas to become more “diverse” (meaning less White people and a blended humanity in all and only White countries), is what qualifies it as (white) genocide as defined by Article II part (c) of the United Nations Genocide Conventions, because these deliberate policies are inflicting our people conditions of life calculated to bring about our physical destruction in whole or in part.
Ok I understand but are these policies really being enforced?
Yes. I asked that very same question myself a few years ago but once I started to look at the world map with this new perspective it became evident that this is no coincidence. You see these policies being enforced in every Western country with a predominately White population. They call it “diversity” and “multiculturalism”, but in reality it is just nice sounding words to say “open borders” and “less White people” if you think about it.
We don’t see an open border policy in China.
We don’t hear anyone demanding Saudi Arabia to take in any number of refugees, and we don’t hear anyone calling Japan nazis for not wanting to be multicultural.
All non-White countries are allowed to be homogenous.
If Peru or Algeria closed their borders tomorrow no one would call them “racist”, but we all know what would happen if Germany or UK would choose to close their borders. We are not allowed to vote on these policies, despite a growing concern among European populations. There must be an open border policy into White countries. Anyone who opposes these policies is called a “racist” or a “naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews”. This is all part of the anti-White mindset.
Are similar policies enforced anywhere else that is considered genocide?
One need only to look East to see very similar policies being taken place in the occupied land of Tibet. The situation in Tibet is that they have a forced open border policy and are subjected to a mass Han-Chinese immigration. The ethnic Tibetans are now in fact a minority in their own country. Their culture is undergoing profound changes and the population is forced to assimilate with the foreign migrants. The Tibetans have had no choice in this matter, they are not allowed to vote for or against these policies taking place.
The consequences of these policies will lead to an even more reduced population of Tibetans, and if nothing changes they will ultimately risk extinction if the Han-Chinese continue with these policies. In other words – genocide.
Dalai Lama himself has of course spoken out against these policies several times, but to no avail. He has even questioned the similar policies taken place in Europe, warning about the consequences of the massive Third World immigration and the refugee-phenomenon.
Tibet is of course only one contemporary example of the acts of genocide, there are many historical examples of such acts which we will not go into detail here.
But the question we should all ask ourselves after reading all this is: if what is happening in Tibet is acknowledged as genocide by internal law and per definition, then why do some people deny it when the very same policies are being enforced in predominantly White countries?