via The Occidental Observer
I did indicate to HuffPo that
the expression “White genocide” sounds too strong. This is because for
many people ‘genocide’ connotes an organized campaign of murder rather
than the gradual replacement and disempowerment which is actually
occurring. It is unquestionably true that the current process will
indeed result in White genocide in the long run as Whites become an ever
decreasing percentage of the population. This genocidal process is
being facilitated by the fact that Whites are persecuted if they
publicize any sense of White identity and interests. It is also true
that miscegenation rates have risen in recent decades, and these trends
will likely increase in the future if current trends continue and as
Whites become an embattled, hated minority. This is genocide by any
The prospect of White genocide is staring us in the face and
motivates our actions, and this vision also motivates our enemies for
whom a dwindling, disempowered White population holds infinite appeal.
But as a political party, we have to sell our ideas to the public, and
this is a non-starter for most people. They look around and see White
politicians with great power (e.g., all of the current presidential
candidates and very large majorities in both Houses of Congress), and
they see that there are many Whites among corporate and professional
leaders. Whites are still very much part of the establishment. We don’t
see White people being marched off to concentration camps.
The term ‘genocide’ is therefore problematic in the current cultural
context. I also note that in all European languages, the word “genocide”
is a verbal construct that first appeared in the wake of World War II.
It was coined by the Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin
in 1944 and subsequently became an important pivot in UN legislation.
As a result of its origins in Jewish ethnic activism, the word
‘genocide’ often has strong, subjective, ethnocentric and frequently
self-serving goals. Over the last 70 years it has given birth to an
array of numerous, often mutually competing (often exaggerated)
victimhoods and commemorations.
Given these competing ethnic interests, it is not surprising that
there is often little agreement on what genocide is. Legal quarrelling
about the definition of ‘genocide’ seems endless. This can be seen in
the decades-long Hague proceedings on the events following the break-up
of ex-Yugoslavia in 1991 — the investigations into mass murder and the
many trials and acquittals. The Hague Tribunal has had hard time
defining/labeling as “genocide” a single large-scale mass murder that
took place in Bosnia in 1993 — as the prosecution often demands
— without however sounding partial in the eyes and the ears of the
defence or the warring party that carried out a specific mass murder.
At this stage, I think it is more appropriate for the AFP, including
friendly, patriotic- minded Americans of European heritage to use the
locutions “White advocates” to describe ourselves and “White
dispossession” to describe the process we are fighting against.