Friday 31 December 2010

Genocide by stealth - Part 1

If 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 (1) 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 forums such as, 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 (2) 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 (3).

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


(1)1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2


Anonymous said...

Macaw said...

I always enjoy your posts, but this one is one of the best (if not the best) that I have read here.

Looking forward to part 2.

Happy new year to you and your precious family. May it be peaceful and thanks once again for showing the readers what the situation is like here in South Africa.

Dr.D said...

A really excellent post, Sarah. Thank you.

I recall the social concerns that were raised when "the pill" first became generally available in the US in the late 1950s. Everyone who voiced the idea that this would weaken sexual morality was viewed as simply old fashioned, and we were all assured that nothing would change at all. This was simply to help married women regulate their periods, nothing more than that (LOL)!

When wholesale abortion became legal with Roe v Wade in the early 1970s, I must admit I was truly shocked. I knew that people got abortions; I knew that it was being done. But just as I knew that people were doing drugs, as long as it was illegal, it was severely limited. Once it became legal, the restraints were off and all havoc broke loose. And it has been millions of abortions every year since that time. We have lost our humanity, our understanding that the babe in the womb is one of us. When mothers no longer understand this, we are really dangerously morally misguided.

John McNeill said...


I have a huge amount of respect for you and your work, but I must respectfully disagree with you on the usage of the g-word.

It's true that there are some leftists in power who crow about the coming extinction of the white race, and if the Julius Streicher precedent were to be taken seriously, those sick people would be on put on trial for crimes against humanity. However, I do not think that every person in power responsible for bad policies has white genocide in mind. Many people are under the erroneous assumption that low births rates can easily recover, or engage in civic nationalist thinking that anyone can mold into any identity, irrespective of their ethnic origin.

This is part of what troubles me about the usage of the term "genocide". I also have problems with the term, because thanks to Arthur Kemp's March of the Titans, I am now aware that history is repeating itself. Arthur Kemp illustrates that the ancient Greeks and Romans vanished thanks to low birth rates and miscegenation with conquered peoples. Sound familiar?

While one could argue that genocide can be applied to a people killing themselves, I think it's problematic because it implies that some outside force is intentionally implementing our destruction. While this may true in particular cases like South Africa, for the most part, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Whites could have easily resisted the cultural revolution of the 60's. Whites could continue to have children despite financial difficulties. Instead many whites decide that material wealth is more important than perpetuating their bloodline.

We are doing ourselves in disservice by downplaying our own role in our downfall, and I believe that if we continue to ignore it, and pretend that white civilization was fine until the globalists showed up and ruined everything, then we will continue the classic Indo-European cycle of growth, conquest, empire, decline, and extinction.

We need to sit down and critically examine what our society is doing wrong, what needs to be done differently so that whites can learn from the mistakes of the past. We need to rewire ourselves to place a greater importance on family and community, and less on individualism and the mass accumulation of material wealth and power.

Regardless, I would like to wish you and your growing family a Happy New Year.

Curt said...

Sarah, the following quote is of great interest to me:
"A recent study (2) 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."
If you can remember where you saw this study published could you please put up a link to it or if it was in a paper publication please print the name of the study and who and when it was published? I would personally be thankful to be able to access it myself. Thanks for your consideration.

Anonymous said...

Lets us whites,not be so hard on ourselves. We didn't ask for this. We are branded nazi's racist,haters if we OBJECTED to ANY of this. The whole effort, from breaking down families to opening the borders of white countries and ONLY white countries, has been directed at GENOCIDE the whites. Only one race is to be "assimilated." The white race.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

@ Curt

I did include a link to the study in the footnotes

Here it is again


Anonymous said...

Sarah – truly a brilliant assessment of the population displacement now near boiling in Europe and simmering in the US. An excellent follow-up to Mark Steyn’s “America Alone” (2005). We in the US are blessed with a high-powered elite of the type you described, John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar. Many of the views he espoused in “Ecosocience, Population, Resources, Environment” (1977) with co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich (and which they now disavow) are related to the coincidences you have observed in Europe which are certainly duplicated here. Their book, as well as Ehrlich’s book “Population Bomb” likely had a significant effect on the elites of Europe who forged the “coincidences”. More detail on Holdren’s history can be found at He is in a powerful position in the White House, answerable only to Obama, and probably also to George Soros. All three are sympathetic towards “planetary government” and seek the collapse of the American industrial, financial and cultural systems.

Looking forward to Part 2.

Anonymous said...

Darkness has one desire. To extinguish the light, that it may prevail. And darkness will use the willing, the indoctrinated, the ignorant, and the passive, to extinguish that light.

And it will even come as an Angel of light.

Anonymous said...

First Time on your Blog and congratulations on a stunning essay.

Michael Savage (US Radio Host)is the only other person I have seen touch on this subject (Link Below) but even he does not have the depth of detail contained in your essay

Happy new year


Anonymous said...


I agree with your assessment of processes and your prognosis but not your allegation of intentionality.

Firstly, a pretty major fact that conflicts with the apparent design you describe is that in Western European benefit societies people are actually paid more for each child they have. In the UK Child Benefit has been (until this new year) paid to every person who has a child and for every child they have, irrespective of income. Even HM the queen could claim it.

Secondly, the kind of "elites" or oligarchies you refer to want to eliminate ALL humanity, not just particular tribes.

Thirdly, for there to be a conspiracy there have to be communications among conspirators. For a conspiracy on such a scale, conducted by several generations of conspirators, there appears to be remarkably little by way of such communications. The only "paper trail" so far has been the report of Andrew Neather advising Tony Blair on immigration policy, exposed as "Neathergate" in 2010. It was written only at the end of the 20th Century. Very late in terms of the picture you paint.

As I say, I agree that the outcome is as you predict. But if you want to oppose the trend I dont think this is the right line of argument. Nothing is ever more easily derided than conspiracy theories. Even on occasions when there is a genuine conspiracy (such as the Ikwan plan for destroying the USA fromwithin,documented in papers possessed by the FBI) it is best in the interest of argument to avoid that "c" word. Unfortunately, the conspiracy you suggest here (like the real ikwan conspiracy) smacks of the "Protocols of The Elders of Zion". Nothing with that connotation will ever be treated seriously and when arguing with scepticsof stealth Jihad I personally avoid reference to the Ikwan plan, for that reason.

In other words, even if this were true, to counter it would best entail not mentioning it. It smacks of "loopy" even though it isnt.

There is another question. If my ethnic group is going to dissapear, why should I care? I will be dead before that happens. How does it affect me? It cannot affect my children either, because, by definition,if we have all "gone" then they will have also? You cannot oppress people who do not exist.

I am much more concerned about the culture and ideology of whoever replaces "us", irrespective of where their parents came from. A nation of "white" converts to Islam (speaking hypothetically) would in my opinion far more worrying than a country populated by brown-skinned converts to secularism. Now on present trends, the latter is just as unlikely as the former. But it need not be. The radicalisation and reactionary zeal of the young Muslim of today is not typical of their parents generation. This upping of the cultural struggle really kicked off with the founding of the ikwan and accellerated after the Iranian revolution.

It isnt over. Everything is there to play for. But I dont think talk of "genocide" helps...anyone...except those who want to portray us as "racists".

misterfox said...

Early immigration does seem to have been allowed because of weakness and the large number of liberals in government and Socialists in The Houses of Parliament. People who tried to stop it with private members Bills like Cyril Osborne MP(Louth) were abused and insulted by his own party Conservative as well as the opposition.
Members of the Commonwealth were British subjects who had the same rights as indigenous people. This was Civis Britannicus sum.
Immigration was and is one-sided as many Commonwealth countries had restrictions on entry but only here could anyone come and welfare benefits readily paid on arrival ensured that they would.

John McNeill said...

"If my ethnic group is going to dissapear, why should I care?"

We cannot answer that for you. We (the majority of commentators on this blog) are ethnonationalists who believe in the preservation of our ethnic identity, and believing our ethnicity to be our true nation.

You obviously do not feel the same way, and so there's nothing we can do to challenge that. If you feel no passion or even identify with a particular ethnic group, then there's no need to ask us why. You are set on your path, as we are on ours.

Anonymous said...

I read somewhere that at the end of WW2 45% of the fertile women of the world was white.
Today it's down to only 5%

Happy New Year to all

kloutlichter said...

Been saying to my wife for years that the governments of the west should be encouraging the native population to have children instead of bringing in immigrants.What sense does it make to have strangers populate your society instead of friends?

Stefcho said...

I no longer consider myself British... Anyone can be 'British', or 'French' or 'European'. I now feel obliged to adopt a new, more meaningful identity.

I don't have anything against non-white 'British' people, but I feel no attachment or loyalty to them whatsoever. In fact, I despair at the changes which have resulted from their presence - and that has been driven by big business, big banking and big government.

Globalization has killed everything worth having: Small, local businesses swallowed by multi-nationals, small friendly banks swallowed by huge aggressive ones, historic communities divided and driven away - their members cowed into silence by their own state.

Mass immigration keeps labour costs down. Handing out citizenship like confetti (eventually) ensures a divided mass with no identity or power to dissent - a captive, multicultural audience... except it is not as benign as we have been led to believe.

Globalization and mass immigration has already started to tribalize Europe. Very well, I know what tribe I belong to.

Anonymous said...

Anon from Australia
What an excellent article. You've succinctly articulated what many feel. It's the emergence of articles like this which give me some hope, some small hope admittedly, that we may be able to reverse some of these ghastly "policy" trends and actually save our heritage and culture.
Bravo to you Sarah. A new reader, awaiting Part 2.

Anonymous said...

On the whole, I agree with your premise, but I have to ask "Why?"

What benefit accrues to the elites (ruling class)? Surely they can't think that they won't be overthrown by the immigrants at some point.

ib said...

Excellent post, I can't wait for the rest.

Timely too, just the other day it occurred to me that we are now beginning to experience our own live version of the book "Camp of the Saints", it is especially noticeable in Europe. Gird up your loins people, the worst is yet to come..

1389 said...

The war on the middle class has been particularly bad in the US. I agree that it is nothing new and it did not start with the Obama Administration.

This is my story, and the story of too many other hard-working older people:

Who are the 99ers?

misterfox said...

These are some interesting quotes on immigration into Britain.

Documents at the Public Records Office show the fifth Marquess of Salisbury trying, “I should not be satisfied with the legislation which you suggest. I feel that it would only be tinkering with what is really becoming a fundamental problem for us all, though it is only beginning to push its ugly head above the surface of politics. The figures which we have been given make it clear that we are faced with a problem which, though at present it may be only a cloud the size of a man’s hand, may easily come to fill the whole political horizon …With each year that passes, and with the general improvement with methods of transportation, the flow increases. Indeed, if something is not done to check it now, I should not be at all surprised if the problem became quite unmanageable in twenty or thirty years time. We might well be faced with very much the same type of appalling issue that is now causing such great difficulties for the United States. The main causes of this sudden inflow of blacks is of course the Welfare State. So long as the antiquated rule obtains that any British subject can come into this country without any limitation at all, these people will pour in to take advantage of our social services and other amenities and we shall have no protection at all.” Letter to Viscount Swinton March 1954.
These records also show Oliver Lyttleton (later Lord Chandos) trying to bring common sense to bear on the matter. In a letter to Swinton 31/3/1954 wanting deposits of £500 to be put down by immigrants, “ if there is to be means of controlling the increasing flow of coloured people who come here largely to enjoy the benefits of the Welfare State.”He had a list of all restrictions imposed on Britons by other Commonwealth countries who refused to accept “persons who are likely to become a public charge,” illiterates”, those deemed “undesirable” had “unsuitable standards or habits of life” many had quota systems and even dictation tests. Jamaica prohibited those likely “to become a charge on public funds by reason of infirmity of body or mind or ill-health or who is not in possession of sufficient means to support himself or such of his dependants as he shall bring with him to the island”.Thirty–nine territories had entry permit systems or required prospective residents to first obtain permission.

misterfox said...

Eminent economist Professor Ezra Mishan exposed immigration as being about cheap labour in the Salibury Review in 1988, “Frequent claims that the new immigrants have in fact reduced the labour shortage in particular sectors of the economy – in particular, the apparent shortages of labour in transport, in nursing, and in what are popularly to be the more menial and less attractive occupations- are na├»ve. Managers of public services in Britain who, along with some private firms, sent agents to the West Indies in the 1950’s in order to recruit labour were only acting as good capitalists would in such circumstances – attracting lower-paid labour from outside their area in order to prevent wages from rising within it. If it was not for that wages would have risen.”Professor Bob Rowbotham in the London Sunday Telegraph of 2 July 2006, referred to the motives of the elites, who were creating what Marx called “A reserve army of labour.” In November 2006 it emerged that the Government were advertising for immigrants to come here. A Foreign Office pamphlet declares: 'Multicultural Britain - A Land of Immigrants'. It encourages immigrants to move here because of the preferential treatment they get under the Human Rights Act and well-paid jobs. The Foreign Office put it in embassies across the world

misterfox said...

In a book review for the Salisbury Review of Spring 2003 Sir Alfred Sherman, former senior advisor to Mrs Thatcher, recalled a friend in race relations had asked him to take a look at the reception areas of Deptford and Southall in the mid 60’s, “ I was horrified. My natural vague sympathies for the immigrants, strangers in a foreign land, was replaced by strong but hopeless sympathy for the British victims of mass immigration, whose home areas were being occupied. I was made aware of a disquieting evolution in “Establishment” attitudes towards what they called immigration or race relations and I dubbed “colonialisation.” The well-being and rights of immigrants and ethnic minorities had become paramount. The British working classes, hitherto the object of demonstrative solicitude by particularly the New Establishment on the left, but the working classes had acquired new status as the enemy, damned by the all-purpose pejorative “racists.”

Unknown said...

Sarah, while I am sure you will know that I disagree with the majority of this post, I think this is an opportunity to focus on areas of agreement, between ourselves, and indeed between yourself and many on the Left.

We have a minimum wage, but I do not think it is enforced strongly enough. Immigrants, especially illegal ones, are often the source of cheap, sub-minumum wage labour, as employers know they can get away with it (illegal immigrants will not have union rep to take their complaints to). This means that, regardless of whether you think current immigration controls are too lax, too strict, or just right, there's a motivation for some employers in Britain to see that they are broken.

Enforcing the minimum wage more strongly, and introducing stricter penalties for employers found paying below it would help to make employing illegal labour unprofitable. It would also mean that wages and living conditions for native Britons, and immigrants that have been legally allowed in, would be better, and hopefully help close that gap between rich and poor that has been growing for decades.

What do you think? Have you stumbled upon some genuine common ground between Left and Right?

Sarah Maid of Albion said...


I certainly agree that immigrants have been exploited by cynical employers, who have used them in order to keep wages artificially low in general, and because they can get away with paying them criminally low wages.

Many immigrants are desperate and are prepared to work for wages which you can only survive on if you are prepared to share a room with eight other people on a shift basis.

That has damaged everyone and I do not blame immigrants for that, they have no choice. I blame the employers and the politicians who have allowed it to happen.

What do you not agree with about the posting? it is all factual.

PatriotUSA said...

Great post Sarah and will be sharing on my site with links
back to here. Well done and very
spot on!!!

Unknown said...

@ Sarah
Well, I would still rather dwell on the areas of agreement. One of the things that I took from watching some recent documentaries on the BNP and Britain's far right is that, while I got the impression that the organisations are lead by people who tend toward extremism and fanaticism, I also got the impression that the concerns of most of the people who make up their support were perfectly reasonable - housing, employment, education, the standard of living that their children could expect, etc. The difference between them and people whose politics, like mine, are far to the Left of these people were the solutions they saw to those issues, but I was surprised by how much was in common, and how much more productive it would be to focus on those.

Briefly, you'll know from previous comments I've made that I think many people on here misuse 'genocide' pretty dramatically.

I disagree with your views on contraception, but that would end up being a bit off-topic.

I also feel that you go beyond describing the facts relating to differences between birth control in the First World and the Second and Third, and make a lot of implications that there is a sinister intent behind them, which is certainly opinion, not factual.

ben tillman said...

Arthur Kemp illustrates that the ancient Greeks and Romans vanished thanks to low birth rates and miscegenation with conquered peoples. Sound familiar?

Sure. And presumably those instances of "vanishing" were also impsed on the peoples in question against their will.

ben tillman said...

As I say, I agree that the outcome is as you predict. But if you want to oppose the trend I dont think this is the right line of argument. Nothing is ever more easily derided than conspiracy theories.

No, what you mean is that our rulers in the mass media deride "conspiracy theories", which is what you would expect from people working together to achieve a goal that they have not disclosed to the people.

ben tillman said...

There is another question. If my ethnic group is going to dissapear, why should I care? I will be dead before that happens. How does it affect me?

Because your ethnic group IS you. Its life is YOUR life. It's impossible to die before your ethnic group dies. As long as it's alive, you're alive.

Tanstaafl said...

In Oct 2009, Andrew Neather, who worked for Mr Straw when he was Home Secretary, and as a speech writer for Mr Blair, stated:

"It didn't just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year, when the Government introduced a points-based system, was to open up the UK to mass migration."

. . .

"The PIU's reports were legendarily tedious within Whitehall but their big immigration report was surrounded by an unusual air of both anticipation and secrecy.

Drafts were handed out in summer 2000 only with extreme reluctance: there was a paranoia about it reaching the media.

Eventually published in January 2001, the innocuously labelled "RDS Occasional Paper no. 67", "Migration: an economic and social analysis" focused heavily on the labour market case.

But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date. That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far.

Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing. For despite Roche's keenness to make her big speech and to be upfront, there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour's core white working-class vote.

This shone through even in the published report: the "social outcomes" it talks about are solely those for immigrants.

. . .

"The results were dramatic. In 1995, 55,000 foreigners were granted the right to settle in the UK. By 2005 that had risen to 179,000; last year, with immigration falling thanks to the recession, it was 148,000.

In addition, hundreds of thousands of migrants have come from the new EU member states since 2004, most requiring neither visas nor permission to work or settle. The UK welcomed an estimated net 1.5 million immigrants in the decade to 2008.

Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.

But ministers wouldn't talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn't necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men's clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.

In part, too, it would have been just too metropolitan an argument to make in such places: London was the real model. Roche was unusual in that she was a London MP, herself of east European Jewish stock.

This is genocide - premeditated and carried out as government policy.

Unknown said...

Ben, what would you say to the suggestion that ethnic groups cannot die, but can only change over time?

I ask out of a little self-interest, as, being mixed-race, and being engaged to someone of a different ethnic background, I either represent both of my parents ethnicities, or neither, and my children will represent both or neither of the ethnicities.

Is it wrong that this does not bother me, whichever interpretation you take? What would I lose if my particular ethnicity is different to that of my children, and any generations that may follow?

I'm just interested in how such mixing of ethnicities is viewed when it is not the oft-discussed White / Black, or White / Muslim.

Is race mixing only a bad thing when it is White people mixing with someone else?

Anonymous said...

These figures may be of interest:’s_racial_demographics

...and from those numbers, a probable 2% of the world's entire population are comprised of White women of child-bearing age.

"Our (Jewish) Control Commissions will, in the interests of peace and wiping out inter-racial tensions, FORBID WHITES TO MATE WITH WHITES. The White women MUST cohabit with members of the DARK RACES, the White men with Black women. Thus the White race will disappear, for mixing the dark with the white means the end of the white man, and OUR most dangerous enemy will become only a memory." -- Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich to a special meeting of the Emergency Council of European Rabbis in Budapest, Hungary, January 12, 1952

...and today, the miscegenation machine keeps rolling on at full steam.

John McNeill said...

"Sure. And presumably those instances of "vanishing" were also impsed on the peoples in question against their will."

I doubt it. There isn't evidence of either the Roman or Greek authorities seeking out to destroy their own native stock. If anything, the governments tried to stop it. Augustus Caesar made improving the birth rate of the native Romans a top priority, in particular, the birth rate of the nobility, which may have been all that was left of true Roman blood at that time.

J said...

European peoples are becoming less important day by day. Obviously, modern life (food, work, pills, etc.) does not agree with them and causes their slow extintion. The essay poses that theory that this process was imposed by a secret intelligent agent that wants to ill to Europeans.

Basically, it is inciting to the search and destruction program. And while Europeans are hysterically chasing phantoms - once more -, the Chinese have grown to 1,500,000,000 individuals and built a super state. From Shanghai, Europe is seeming more and more irrelevant. They look at you in amazement but are too polite to say anything.

SECRETS said...

Good stuff, Sarah.

Jack Black/ironwand.

Anonymous said...

I have only now got to this. I had a clutch of comments, but I shall refrain. The post is too confronting for immediate responses. Thank you. I shall indeed ponder this for quite some time.


Tonyjgroves said...

Sarah, I applaud you. You are absolutely right on all points. I said only yesterday to a friend that the British (I'm English and a Londoner) are being ethnically cleansed. We are being wiped out by mass migration, by too low a birth rate and - one thing you didn't mention - by white women having children with non white men. I know one west indian who has nine children by seven women, all of them white. In the last decade I have watched my local community disappearing at a frightening rate and though I am minutes walk from parliament itself in our capitol, I can go out now and not see another english person and often don't even hear our language being spoken. Along with birth control, abortions happen by untold thousands and as you say, women have no choice but to work and we now have people in their late thirties still living with mum and dad because buying a home is beyond their reach and rents for properties are crippling, leaving virtually no disposable income. Even the bastion of British community the local pub is dying, driven to extinction by high taxation, the smoking ban and also because the millions of immigrants open their own bars and don't use our pubs. As they die, so communication and discussion between communities is being destroyed along with it and that is all part of the plan - divide and conquer. Not to mention the fact that immigrant street crime is so out of control, even tough building workers are too scared to walk home at night - and to make that worse, they are now closing prisons, releasing dangerous criminals and cutting the size of the police force - and all this designed to keep the people in fear and turmoil while they usher in their totalitarian world order. We are being destroyed and it most certainly isn't an accident. I've been preaching this message for years now, but I fear people are waking up to the danger too slowly and the pressure to survive is being made so great, they have little time to think about it all let alone organise resistance. May God help us all.