The Genocide of Indigenous Europeans
The prevailing ideology of contemporary Europe could be called “liberal multiculturalism” or perhaps “multicultural liberalism.” This ideology consists of two components, which may not even be compatible: multiculturalism views contemporary Western societies as divided into distinct groups, each with their own rights, while liberalism is a doctrine of individual rights developed long before mass immigration within the unusually individualistic civilization of Europe. Liberalism is ill-suited to the group-oriented, inherited folkways of non-European immigrants—particularly Muslims—while multiculturalism was developed specifically for their needs and for their benefit.
Even the most hard-core liberal individualists must grapple with the question of whether group rights exist and what those rights should be. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948, states that “everyone has the right to a nationality” which shall not be arbitrarily deprived of them. The world is not made up of individuals alone; people are tribal everywhere, writes F. Roger Devlin .
National self-determination is a group right generally recognized in international law. In 1966, the UN adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Its very first article states: “All peoples have the right to self-determination” and, based on this right, “freely to determine their political status.” Italian jurist Antonio Cassese clarified this:
Internal self-determination signifies the right to authentic self-government, that is, the right of a people to truly and freely choose their own political and economic regime—which is much more than simply choosing from what is offered by one political or economic position. It is a continuing right… the right to internal self-determination is not nullified or diminished by the fact that it has already been invoked and exercised.
This means that there can be no irreversible government policy, including in the area of migration policy.
The word “genocide”—derived from the Greek genos , which can be translated as race, tribe, or family—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 and commonly known as the Genocide Convention. Lemkin emphasized that his neologism was intended to refer not only to the systematic murder of all members of a group, but also to the creation of conditions incompatible with the long-term survival of that group. The Genocide Convention includes in its definition “the deliberate infliction on the group of conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” and provides punishment not only for state actors but for anyone who publicly incites or complicits in genocide.
As Lemkin wrote, “Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacities, but as members of the national group.” In other words, protection against genocide is a matter of group rights, not individual rights as in liberal theory—even though anti-genocide campaigners like to consider themselves liberals or employ liberal principles in other contexts.
The multicultural ideal first emerged in the context of Western expansion and colonialism, which reduced Indigenous peoples (such as Native Americans) to relatively powerless minorities in areas they had previously controlled. Many people—not only members of such groups themselves, but also sympathetic whites—came to believe that individual liberal rights were insufficient to protect such remnant populations. They needed group rights that allowed them to preserve and continue their own traditions, which were unlikely to survive in a massive, liberal, individualistic society where they were a vast minority. Thus, the concept of Indigenous rights emerged .
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 to the destruction of their culture. States must provide effective mechanisms to prevent and redress a) any act the purpose or effect of which has the purpose or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identity; b) any act the purpose or effect of which has the purpose or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources; c) any form of forced transfer of population the purpose or effect of which has the purpose or effect of violating or undermining their rights; d) any form of forced assimilation or integration; e) any form of propaganda aimed at promoting or inciting racial or ethnic discrimination against them.
Other articles in the declaration guarantee indigenous peoples the right to govern themselves according to their own cultural norms, to form ethnically closed communities, and to control their own educational systems and institutions to ensure the transmission of their cultural heritage. The declaration contains no fewer than 46 such rights.
This document seems tailor-made for use against the Great Replacement, and it seems equally self-evident that white Europeans are “indigenous” to the European continent where their ancestors have lived for 40,000 years. However, in the realm of international human rights law, things are not always as they seem.
Although the UN has never officially adopted a precise definition of the term “indigenous,” some of its documents refer to such peoples not simply as the indigenous population of a particular region, but as ethnic groups who have lost their formerly dominant position through conquest, colonization, or settlement. As Dr. Ellis notes, this seems to postpone any European claim to indigenous status until the indigenous population is reduced to a minority. On the day that tipping point is reached, all the rights the UN has granted to indigenous people will suddenly be transferred to Europeans. By then, of course, it will already be too late. And even then, no one needs to come up with a reason to deny Europeans such rights per se , even if they become a minority. That would be within the grasp of any imaginative “human rights expert.”
However, it’s not necessary to invoke “indigenous rights” to see that the European Union’s migration policy conflicts with its own principles. According to the EU Treaty, the organization’s purpose is “to promote peace and the well-being of its peoples.” It strives to “respect” Europe’s “rich cultural and linguistic diversity” and to “ensure” that its “cultural heritage” is “protected and enhanced.” The treaty also obliges the EU to respect the “national identities” of its member states.
The continued immigration of non-Europeans is clearly incompatible with these principles. Mass immigration leads to ethnic conflicts that can escalate into war, threatens the identity of nations, and puts an end to national self-determination once the political alliance between immigrants and disloyal native Europeans (commonly called the “left”) becomes larger than the group supporting the survival of national and cultural identity.
Dr. Ellis calls this anti-patriotic alliance the replacement of ethnic majority rule with political majority rule. Andrew Neather, a speechwriter for the British Labour Party, is one of the few who has openly discussed this strategy, admitting that the Blair government “wanted to confront the right wing with diversity and render their arguments obsolete.” These are people for whom compatriots are interchangeable with foreigners, not because they love everyone equally, but because any ethnic group can serve as a basis for their power.
In short, the fundamental problem with Europe’s prevailing ideology, which we have termed “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 culture (Western culture) is expected to function as a neutral promoter of universal values, without its own specific traditions. Neither multiculturalism nor liberal universalism recognizes the ethnic particularism of Europeans.”
The left never justifies this double standard, but it gives immigrant groups an almost insurmountable advantage in their struggle with natives. Those who uphold this contradictory moral standard are, to quote the words of the Genocide Convention, “deliberately inflicting [Europeans] with living conditions calculated to bring about [their] physical destruction.” If UN declarations were more than words on paper, European leaders and pro-immigration activists would have to answer for the crime of genocide against their own people.
Advocating for immigration – or refusing to advocate for it
The reasons European leaders typically cite to justify mass immigration are the low birth rate among natives and the aging population. They argue that Europe can only maintain its place on the world stage by bringing in new populations to replace Europeans. These ideas were developed in a 2001 UN report titled Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Aging Populations? The report offers five possible scenarios, two of which Dr. Ellis discusses:
1) Immigration to maintain the size of the working-age population. This would require bringing in 80 million people, or 1.6 million per year. By 2050, people with a non-European background are expected to make up more than 25 percent of the EU population. This scenario is quite close to what actually happens.
2) Immigration to maintain the ratio of working-age to retirees. This would require nearly 700 million newcomers, or 13 million per year. Within a few generations, native Europeans would be reduced to a status comparable to that of Native Americans in North America.
This UN report views humanity in economic terms, viewing people as interchangeable producers and consumers. It also assumes that infinite economic growth is both possible and morally necessary, despite the fact that our planet is finite.
The report also completely ignores a people’s identification with their ancestral land. According to Monica Duffy Toft, a scholar of international relations, ethnic groups “consider territory as inextricably linked to their identity and thus ultimately to their survival as a group,” something that is separate from the objective value of territory as real estate. The national homeland has a symbolic significance so profound that it can lead to large-scale self-sacrifice. According to Ms. Toft and Dominic D.P. Johnson, nearly three-quarters of all ethnic wars between 1940 and 2000 were over control of territory.
As Dr. Ellis explains, the state does not share this attachment to the homeland. The state strives for power and survival by controlling material resources and physical territories. For the state, land is merely real estate, and people are “productive resources.” European rulers can therefore rationally calculate that their power depends on the massive import of foreigners to replace the existing population. This is the natural position of those without loyalty, who are incapable of seeing themselves as stewards of their people’s fate, even though they give their own indifference the sweet-sounding name of “tolerance.”
Europe’s low birth rates are a real problem, but in its haste to advocate mass migration as a solution, the UN fails to address the root cause. Obvious culprits include women’s careerism, declining legal and cultural support for marriage, and widespread contraception and abortion; these trends could be reversed, but the UN ignores that possibility.
Moreover, as Dr. Ellis notes, “low demographic growth doesn’t necessarily mean low economic growth or declining political power.” Europe experienced its most impressive growth and the height of its power and influence in the 19th century, when many Europeans emigrated. Today, increasing labor productivity through robotics and artificial intelligence is a much more rational strategy than importing non-Europeans, who are largely unskilled and not particularly productive. Moreover, such workers compete with the poorest native populations, driving down wages for everyone. Many foreigners are unable to find work and live on welfare or through crime. Europe cannot provide an infinite number of jobs to such migrants.
The author emphasizes that economic arguments are merely pretexts. Since the mid-1970s, the vast majority of immigrants have not been admitted as workers, but for reasons of family reunification or marriage, and many of these marriages have been arranged, with unauthorised spouses remaining behind. Any adult can marry, leading to chain migration, a “right” now anxiously protected by a large number of lobbies, laws, and “human rights advocates.”
Dr. Ellis also exposed the most ridiculous argument for mass immigration to Europe I have ever heard: In 2016, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble stated that “isolating” Europe by stopping immigration would lead to the degeneration of the native population through inbreeding .
In fact, white Europeans have long been the most exogamous, least inbred population on earth. For a time, the church officially prohibited marriage between sixth cousins, a restriction likely found nowhere else. Many recent immigrants to Europe are Muslims, for whom cousin marriage is common. They face high rates of genetic abnormalities, increasing their burden on European taxpayers.
Many proponents of mass immigration don’t even bother to advocate for it. Instead of convincing people that it’s beneficial—a task that has become nearly impossible—they claim it’s inevitable . As Myron Weiner and Michael Teitelbaum explain in their 2001 book Political Demography, Demographic Engineering , these proponents “prefer to portray international migration as an inexorable process, driven by enormously powerful economic, demographic, and social forces that overwhelm all government attempts to influence them—a kind of human tectonics.” They conclude that this is, at the very least, a gross exaggeration. Mass migration is an elite project. The enormous effort and resources expended on “anti-racist” propaganda and ever-expanding hate crime legislation aimed at suppressing indigenous resistance are sufficient evidence that the process is not natural. The argument from inevitability is designed as psychological warfare against immigration opponents, an attempt to demoralize them like villains in a science fiction film: “RESISTANCE IS FUSAL!”
A good example of this is this statement by Frans Timmermans, Vice-President of the European Commission, from 2015:
Europe will be diverse, just like all other parts of the world, because diversity is humanity’s destiny. Even in the most remote corners of this planet, there will be no country that will not experience diversity in the future. That is where humanity is headed.
Even aside from this claim that he can predict the future, Mr. Timmermans’ claim is false. Professional demographers such as Weiner and Teitelbaum, on the other hand, write about a
current global trend towards demographic disintegration… Demographic trends have been toward ethnic consolidation rather than diversification, and the processes of exodus and return have led to increasing religious, linguistic, and other ethnic homogeneity.
Some observers even speak of “re-indigenization.” The West is the exception: the only region where diversity is increasing.
Faced with claims of inevitability, we must recall Antonio Cassese’s remark, quoted above, that “the right to self-determination is not destroyed or diminished by the fact that it has already been invoked.” No political actor has the authority to make decisions binding on all future generations; all political decisions are subject to reconsideration at any time. If the rising generation of Europeans has any say in the matter, the old continent can still enjoy its own era of “reindigenization.”
Immigrants or colonists?
Demographers Weiner and Teitelbaum even suggest that “immigration” isn’t the right term for the waves of people pouring into Europe. Strictly speaking, immigrants are newcomers who want to join an already existing host society: they seek belonging . Settlers, on the other hand, consider themselves superior to the natives and seek to establish political authority; they seek conquest .
The difference is evident in cases like that of Sukant Chandan, an Indian with a British passport who expressed his gratitude to his host country as follows:
Germany’s War on Christianity: Open Borders, Islamic Hatred, and the Collapse of a Nation’s Faith
The West wanted us to do their dirty work here, and then they wanted us gone. But we fought for our right to stay here, against the government and against far-right and racist organizations. We are here to stay. Now the final challenge for us is to completely take over the West. Black and Asian people must come here in their hundreds of millions. It is not right that imperialism has robbed our countries of all their wealth and destroyed them for 500 years. We will keep coming here until Europe becomes black!
Lee Sam-dol is a Korean who has settled in Sweden. He says, “It is logical that the white race is inferior in every conceivable way, given its history and current actions. Let the white race perish in blood and suffering.” However, the reader should not suspect this gentleman of racism ; he is a co-founder of Expo, the most prominent anti-racist organization in Sweden.
A prominent imam says: “One of the objectives of immigration is to revive the duty of jihad and to impose power on the infidels.”
Given the ease with which such statements can be found, it’s remarkable how many observers still propose “assimilation,” as if the decision to “assimilate” is entirely up to us. There’s ample evidence that Muslim immigrants, in particular, become more attached to their traditions the longer they live in Europe. It’s a good thing they don’t assimilate; mass repatriation would be much more difficult if assimilation actually occurred.
Muslim immigrants not only remain attached to their ancestral customs, they also collaborate with governments and Islamic organizations in their home countries. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Turkey fund Islamic groups in Europe, and some countries refuse to take back their own citizens.
Objectively weaker countries can easily manipulate European governments. For example, Turkey allowed hundreds of thousands of migrants into Europe in 2015 and only agreed to stop them when European leaders offered to pay. Turkish President Erdoğan says he wants to restore the Ottoman Empire through conquest and describes the Germans and Dutch as Nazis and fascists. In 2017, he urged Turks living in Europe to reproduce faster than the native population, telling them, “You are the future of Europe.” Astonishingly, Turkey remains an official candidate for EU membership.
Organizing against the nation state
Europe’s ethnic transformation is closely linked to the rise of supranational organizations: the EU, the UN, and various “humanitarian” non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that challenge the nation state because they benefit from undermining its legitimacy. NGOs support the US-led wars in the Middle East because they generate the desired refugee flows to Europe.
An example of this is Calais Migrant Solidarity, part of the broader, transnational No Border Network. Calais Migrant Solidarity specializes in helping migrants reach the UK from Calais, France. It establishes squats for undocumented migrants and helps them organize protests and riots, including blocking the Channel Tunnel, storming ferries, and stealing boats. It also trains, organizes, and incites vandalism, arson, and mass violence against the police and other authorities.
Perhaps the most important pro-immigration NGO is financier George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. Mr. Soros describes his “open society” as “a universal concept” that “transcends all borders” and is governed by a “global system of political decision-making.”
Mr. Soros explains that “closed” societies “derive their cohesion from shared values… rooted in culture, religion, history, and tradition”—a description that applies to almost every society in history. Such societies are the enemy. Perhaps Soros’s clearest principle is that any European society that attempts to control its borders and preserve its hereditary ethnic majority is “closed” and must be opened. He funded several organizations that facilitated the 2015 migrant crisis.
One of Mr. Soros’s more interesting recent projects is Boats4People, a coalition of 14 organizations that supports Africans who enter Europe illegally by crossing the Mediterranean Sea. Some organizations within Boats4People distribute manuals in Arabic with advice on the best places to cross. This has a dual effect. Boats4People can blame the authorities for the loss of life at sea, while its own employees have encouraged illegal and reckless crossings.
In what might be a fitting conclusion to her many excellent arguments, Dr. Ellis writes:
Attempts to deprive countries of the ability to defend their borders and flood Europe’s shores with illegal immigrants are simply criminal activities: human trafficking, violation of national sovereignty, incitement to resistance to decisions of the authorities, and so on, and must be prosecuted as such.
https://www.frontnieuws.com/de-genocide-op-de-autochtone-europeanen