What is “White Genocide” – A Thorough Explanation
An audio version of this article is now available and can be found here.
“White genocide” is a term that is receiving greater attention lately in the media and in online communities, but not everyone fully understands its meaning. We have already, recently written an article that touches upon this subject, but this piece 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. It was coined by a man named Raphael Lemkin. The purpose was to define violent crimes committed against various and specific groups of people within our societies, 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 through violent bloodshed. However, the term is much more complex than that, and this 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:
Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group:
(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 encompassed by 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, such acts are 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 aimed 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 feeling, religion, and the economic institutions and systems 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 the context of 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) – Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group – in Western White countries, the phenomenon of cultural Marxism has, without a doubt, caused mental harm to our people. For generations, we 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 currently very relevant when 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, abortion (as well as other factors) has led to a very low birth rate amongst 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 relentless massive Third World immigration into all White countries, and only White countries. These open border policies, 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 current goings-on as (white) genocide as defined by Article II part (c) of the United Nations Genocide Convention, because these deliberate policies are inflicting on 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 White Genocide is no mere 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, these are just nice sounding ways of saying “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 the Japanese nazis for not wanting to be multicultural.
All non-White countries are allowed to be ethnically 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 the UK did choose to close their borders. We are not allowed to vote on these policies, despite a growing concern amongst European populations. There must be an open border policy into White countries. Anyone who opposes these policies is called a “racist” or a “nazi”. This is all part of the anti-White mindset.
Are similar policies enforced anywhere else that are considered genocidal?
One need only to look East to see very similar policies being put in place in the occupied land of Tibet. The situation in Tibet is that they have a forced open border policy and are subjected to 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 the policies put in place.
The consequences of these policies will lead to an even further reduced population of Tibetans, and if nothing changes they will ultimately risk extinction. In other words – genocide.
The Dalai Lama himself has, of course, spoken out against these policies several times, but to no avail. He has even questioned the similar policies we see in Europe, warning about the consequences of massive Third World immigration and the refugee-phenomenon.
Tibet is only one contemporary example of the act of genocide. There are many historical examples which we will not delve into here.
But the question we should all ask ourselves is: if what is happening in Tibet is acknowledged as genocide by international law and by definition, then why do some people deny it when the very same policies are being enforced in predominantly White countries?
More about the subject:
How to Reverse White Genocide – An Outline for Practical and Peaceful Solutions