Nov 24, 2015

Who Is Responsible for White Genocide?

via Nationalist Alternative

Greg Johnson of Counter Currents publishing has penned an article titled “White Genocide” which questions whether people who aren’t aware that mass immigration and assimilation could lead to Whites being assimilated out can be held responsible.  Greg takes the view that it is likely there are people who are aware of the consequences, and therefore should be held responsible.
But when such people are informed, their reactions fall into several categories. Some will simply refuse to accept that white extinction is taking place. Of those who accept that white extinction is actually happening, some will wish to stop it, and others will not. Of the latter, some will simply not care, and others will actually cheer the process on.

There is, however, a difference between people who might sign on to policies promoting white genocide after the fact and those who might conceive and execute such policies before the fact and with full awareness of their consequences. What evidence is there that such people exist?

First, the burden of proof needs to be shifted. For is it really plausible that the leaders of dozens of white nations have adopted similar policies antithetical to the long-term survival of their own peoples, yet none of them knew what they are doing?

Yes, it is fashionable to deride politicians for thinking only in terms of the next election. But that is not really true. Politicians are, for instance, rather far-sighted when it comes to their personal career ambitions and plans. Beyond that, our ruling elites do not consist simply of democratic politicians. Moreover, the ruling elites in every form of society are noted for thinking and planning ahead. Both government intelligence agencies and private think tanks are in the business of generating long-term predictions based on current trends, and planning accordingly. Thus it is just not plausible that our leaders are unaware of white extinction. They either don’t care about it, or they want it to happen.
Indeed, there is ample evidence of both occurring, that is, people seeking to “undermine homogeneity“, and people who after having the facts pointed out, then seek to justify their position rather than reconsider it.  Greg then writes at length about the Jewish influence, which although exists, can act as a buffer, or even act as a defence of White people who cheer our own demise.
The question of whether people who perhaps haven’t deliberately sought to bring about a mixed race utopia in all and only white nations, but still support the basic principles which bring it about (third world immigration, assimilation, anti-racism and efforts against pro-white speech and sentiment) should be held accountable is an important one.  Particularly when there may come a day when this question becomes more than theoretical.
In this authors opinion, there is little doubt that everyone supporting the program must held as being responsible for it.  The crux of the White Genocide argument is that there are people who are supporting a program which will logically lead to white people being assimilated out through intermarriage and mass migration.  The logical conclusion is obvious, and anti-whites admit to it, admit it is desirable and cannot put forward an argument or proof that this won’t happen.  Anything which may be done to prevent this outcome is labelled by anti-whites as “racist”.  Anything.  Whether that be a single white nation putting in policy to stay white, or white people segregating, or white people suggesting against interracial marriage.  They are ALL racist.  They don’t support limiting immigration.  They don’t suggest that maybe mass non-white immigration can cease when a threshold is reached.  So anti-whites support everything which will result in whites being assimilated out.  They reject ANYTHING which may be put forward to prevent it.

Now, if this has been pointed out to them, and they cannot refute the argument, then they are then aware they are committing Genocide.  Note that at this point, most anti-whites then don’t refute, but rather rationalise it, suggest it doesn’t matter, suggest that perhaps it’s deserved, or no big deal, or its “progress”, or better than the alternative, or whatever.  They justify Genocide rather than prove it’s not occurring.

It is irrelevant whether they “know what they are doing” or not.  It has been pointed out.  Many times.  Not only by pro-whites, but by anti-whites.  I simply don’t buy that they don’t know.  The argument that “when the races are mixed, there will be no racism any more” has been put forward ad nauseum.  Everyone is familiar with it.  Everyone knows that it is only white nations which must become multiracial.  How else do they know to get upset when Hungary doesn’t take in refugees but not care when China which has millions of empty homes begging for people doesn’t?

Suggesting that perhaps anti-whites aren’t aware is a bad strategy.  They say all the time that whites must go.  They seem to be well aware of any perceived Islamophobia, of any comment which might cause angst for a person of colour, but aren’t aware of people saying it will be great when Whites are gone?   Ignorance is no excuse.  If someone tells you that the additive you put into coffee is going to kill someone, and you cannot prove otherwise, then if you continue to do so, you are responsible for the ensuing death.

There cannot be any room, nor acceptance of ignorance of this matter.  Once they have been told of the consequences of current policies and ‘morals’ leading to Genocide, and they’ve failed to prove that it doesn’t logically lead to it, then they are obligated, morally, if they don’t support Genocide, to reconsider their position.  If they refuse, they are accepting the outcome.

It must be put in such a stark matter.  It must become unacceptable to be neutral on this issue.

No comments:

Post a Comment