Europe’s rulers and pro-immigration activists are committing genocide against their own people. By Roger Devlin at The Unz Review.
TL;DR:
[The] three consequences of mass immigration for native Europeans: demographic decline, political decline, and a decline in social trust and cohesion. The author argues that it constitutes genocide against Europeans under well-established principles of international law.
Individual rights vs. group rights:
Multiculturalism understands contemporary Western societies as divided into discreet groups, each with its own rights, while liberalism is a doctrine of individual rights developed within the unusually individualistic civilization of Europe long before mass immigration. …
Even the most thoroughgoing liberal individualists must consider the problem of whether group rights exist and what such rights should be.
The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948, asserted that “everyone has a right to a nationality” of which he must not be arbitrarily deprived. The world does not consist simply of individuals; men are everywhere tribal.
National self-determination is a group right widely recognized in international law. In 1966, the UN adopted an International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Its very first article declares: “All peoples have the right to self-determination” and, based on this right, “freely determine their political status.” …
Genocide:
The word “genocide” — derived from the Greek genos, translatable as race, tribe, or kin — was coined in the 1940s by the Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin. He was the initiator of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted by the United Nations in 1948, commonly known as the Genocide Convention.
Lemkin stressed that his neologism was not meant to refer only to the systematic murder of all members of a group, but also to setting up conditions incompatible with long-term group survival.
The Genocide Convention includes in its definition “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” and provides for punishment not merely of state actors but of all who publicly incite or are complicit in genocide. …
Indigenous rights:
The multicultural ideal first emerged in the context of Western expansion and colonialism, which reduced native populations (such as American Indians) to relatively powerless minorities in lands of which they were formerly masters. Many people — not only members of such groups themselves but also sympathetic whites — came to believe that individual liberal rights were inadequate for protecting such relict populations. They should enjoy group rights allowing them to safeguard and perpetuate their distinct traditions, which would be unlikely to survive in a mass liberal individualist society where they were greatly outnumbered. Thus arose the concept of indigenous rights.
In 2007, the UN adopted a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 8 states that:
“Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of and redress for … e) any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.“
I think we can all see who the guilty ones are here:
This document would seem to be tailor-made to use against the Great Replacement, and it seems equally obvious that white Europeans are “indigenous” to the European continent where their ancestors have been living for 40,000 years. …
Ongoing immigration of non-Europeans is obviously not compatible with these principles. Mass immigration gives rise to ethnic conflicts likely to lead to war; it threatens the identities of nations; and it will eliminate national self-determination as soon as the political alliance between immigrants and disloyal native Europeans (commonly called “the Left”) outnumbers those who support national and cultural survival. …
Andrew Neather, a speechwriter for the British Labour Party, has been among the few to speak openly of this strategy by admitting that the Blair Government wanted to “rub the right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.” These are people for whom fellow countrymen are interchangeable with foreigners; not because they love everyone equally, but because any population can serve as a base for their power.
They have group rights, but we don’t:
In sum, the fundamental problem with the governing ideology of Europe we have called “multicultural liberalism” is that it grants immigrant communities in Europe both individual and group rights, while recognizing only individual rights for natives.
In Dr. Ellis’s words: “The host (Western) culture is expected to function as a neutral promoter of universal values with no particular traditions of its own. Both multiculturalism and liberal universalism fail to acknowledge the ethnic particularism of Europeans.”
The Left never justifies this double standard, but it gives immigrant groups a nearly insuperable advantage in their battles with natives. Those who uphold this conflicted moral standard are — to cite the words of the Genocide Convention — “deliberately inflicting on [Europeans] conditions of life calculated to bring about [their] physical destruction.”
The New Class is committing genocide against European whites:
If UN declarations were anything more than words on paper, Europe’s rulers and pro-immigration activists would be made to answer for the crime of genocide against their own people. …
The author stresses that economic arguments are just pretexts. Since the mid-1970s, the overwhelming majority of immigrants have been admitted not as workers but for reasons of family reunification or marriage, and many such marriages are arranged, not admissions of spouses left behind. Any adult can marry, so this leads to chain migration, a “right” now jealously protected by a host of lobbies, laws, and “human rights” attorneys. …
Many who favor mass immigration don’t even bother to argue for it. Instead of trying to convince people it will be beneficial — by now a nearly impossible task — they assert that it is inevitable. …
Mass migration is an elite project. The enormous efforts and resources spent on “anti-racist” propaganda and ever-expanding hate crime legislation aimed at suppressing native resistance are sufficient proof that the process is not natural. …
It’s not really immigration, is it?
“Immigration” is not the proper term for the human waves pouring into Europe. Properly speaking, immigrants are newcomers who want to join an already-existing host society: they are looking to belong. By contrast, settlers regard themselves as superior to natives and want to establish political authority; they want victory.
The difference becomes clear in cases like that of Sukant Chandan, an Indian with a British passport who has expressed gratitude to his host nation as follows: “The West wanted us to do their dirty work here and [then] they wanted us out. But we fought for our right to stay here, against the government and against the Far Right and racist organizations. We’re here to stay. Now, I think, the final challenge is for us to completely take over the West. Black and Asian people should come here in the hundreds of millions. It’s not right that for 500 years, imperialism has looted our countries of all their wealth, has destroyed our countries. We will continue to come here until Europe will turn Black!”
Lee Sam-dol is a Korean who settled in Sweden. He says: “Knowing the white race is inferior on every conceivable plane is natural, considering its history and current actions. Let the white race perish in blood and suffering.” The reader must not suspect this gentleman of racism, however; his is a cofounder of Expo, the most prominent “anti-racist” organization in Sweden.
A prominent Imam says: “One of the goals of immigration is the revival of the duty of jihad and enforcement of power over the infidels.”
In light of how easy it is to find statements like these, it is remarkable how many observers still propose “assimilation,” as if the decision to “assimilate” was entirely up to us. There is much evidence that Muslim immigrants, especially, become more strongly attached to their traditions the longer they live in Europe. It is good that they fail to assimilate; mass repatriation would be far harder if assimilation were actually happening.
When the Third World comes to European countries, whites (Europeans) continue to be afforded individual rights — that are a defining characteristic of European culture — but the incoming Third Worlders, who don’t enjoy individual rights where they come from, are afforded both individual rights and group rights.
This explains why woke denies white people any right to an ethnic identity, prioritizes immigrants over the native white population, and punishes any white who wants to recognise his/her ethnic or national identity while celebrating and protecting the ethnic/national identity of immigrants.
Fortunately, outside stupid legacy media world, whites are waking up.