|
|
|
Something Putin is actually doing wrong: Holodomor denial With all the idiocy about some spy who someone killed saturating the news (apparently for no better reason than some Jewish criminals care about him) it is easy to miss another, far more important piece of news involving Russia and Putin: Ukrainians are petitioning the UN to recognize the Holodomor as an act of genocide and Putin’s Russian-nationalistic regime is fighting it. I’m sympathetic to Putin’s regime’s struggle to fight off the on-going genocide against the Russian nation—genocide which is denied continually—but Putin is in error here. It was not “Russians” that committed the Holodomor genocide, it was Communists—a viciously anti-nationalist gang that took their ideology of destroying nations (the real definition of genocide under the Geneva Convention) to the extremes represented by the Holodomor—and quite probably trigged Hitler’s rise to power in nearby Germany. Putin needs to simply repudiate the genocidal antinationalists of the world, including Stalin, and continue the very difficult work of saving his Russian nation from the current genocide. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:16 | # guys like Putin, who seem more concerned with the power of the “Russian” state Yep, that’s how it seems. Putin’s desire for Russia to be a great power led him initially to adopt the Duginist geopolitical model. He has moved on, but still seeks to split Land (the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis) from Sea (Britain and America). He is either a Russian patriot or a Russian Caeser, in both cases operating through a Fascistic regard for the state. Which of these it is will be clearer when we see whether he tries to change the law banning an incumbent two-termer from seeking a third term as President. 3
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:54 | # Polonium, Fair enough. Given the problem with immigration in Russia from former Soviet states I should have provided a link to my prior post about Putin’s regime: “Russia deports llegals: Western press pissed”. http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/russia_deports_illegals_western_press_pissed/ 4
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:20 | # Polonium’s comment was one of the best I’ve seen in my life on any subject bar none! No mistakes! Every word perfect! Bravo! Reading his comment was like reading a perfect poem: pure pleasure! Thank you, thank you, thank you for that, Polonium! 5
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:36 | #
No, Professor: Western governments should encourage Russia to implement a twofold policy of moratorium and repatriation, and should continue that twofold policy until the Russian racial/ethnocultural status quo ante is fully restored. The Western governments should simultaneously implement the same for themselves. As for the second sentence of Prof. Goble’s, quoted above, he should be jailed for life for saying it. As Polonium says, he’s deliberately assuming the demographic change is inevitable. It’s anything but. This slimy professor is motivated by pure malice: genociding the Russian nation is uppermost among his priorities. No man who is sane, honest, and decent could make that comment he made. Where do they dig up these pieces of sewage known as “professors”? 6
Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:30 | # Where is Paul Goble from? Goble doesn’t sound like any Slav name I ever heard. 7
Posted by Kenelm Digby on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:48 | # A shallow posting,some might think, but I have always been struck by Vladimir Putin’s physignomy - he has an intelligent face, a face that betokens a quiet, deeply serious but profoundly strong intellect. 8
Posted by Amalek on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 14:50 | # By no stretch of imagination was the Ukraine collectivisation famine ‘genocide’, even using the mendacious original definition of Lemkin. (Attempting to wipe out the Jews of Europe is not the same as wiping out all of Jewry, assuming you still believe that was what the Germans were up to.) It’s about time these hoary old Cold War ‘whatabouters’ were re-examined. Anecdotes about cannibalism and Walter Duranty’s chitchat are not enough. The extent to which the manner of collectivisation in the early 1930s was centrally directed rather than botched by ‘dizzy with success’ young emissaries of Moscow; the extent to which it was aimed at people of a particular race, rather than class; and the numbers of famine, evacuation or execution victims—all are now hotly disputed by western as well as Russian historians, as is the whole account of the Great Terror. (Neither is it clear that Communist ideology was the dominant impulse behind Stalin’s dash for growth, nor that Ukraine operations were disproportionately carried out by Jewish Bolsheviks bent on persecuting Christians. The Jewish inlfuence in the Party was already on the wane.) The CIA agent Robert Conquest is not the last word, any more than Raul Hilberg was the last word about the Shoah. The archives may in time tell a far blander tale. Prima facie, the ‘liquidation of the kulaks as a class’ was nothing to do with any effort to destroy the Ukrainians as a nationality—if they are a nationality, something many anthropologists would also dispute. The ‘Holodomor’ is an example of fools trying to fight Jewish liars with their own weapons. My prediction is that it will blow up in the fools’ faces as surely as exaggerated claims about the intentionality and effectiveness of the ‘Holocaust’ are exploding. For MR.com to embrace such tu-quoque blather is another example of ‘enemy capture’- thinking like globalists and ideologues instead of taking the conservative line that most people, in all times and places, are too lazy to be really wicked and too stupid to make their wickedness as effective as their enemies would wish you to believe. As I wrote the last time this flock of canards took wing: {i]I am quite content to be shot at from both sides when pouring cold water on atrocity yarns. Indeed I never feel happy otherwise. There is so much parti pris, so much lying and jumping to conclusions, so much shroud-waving and victimological self-righteousness in this fallen world, that the fence in No Man’s Land is the only honourable place to be. No doubt I shall get my reward in Heaven, or in the hottest place in Hell. Quite apart from the question one constantly asks oneself: why should Britons care what happened to foreigners a long time ago? What are we failing to worry about that concerns the future interests of our own people while we play the international blame game? If you insist, Desmond Jones quoted some wildly varying estimates of ‘Holodomor’ deaths in this thread: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/stalins_willing_executioners/ 9
Posted by Drunken Cossack on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 15:38 | # “why should Britons care what happened to foreigners a long time ago” Now, that is a point of interest. *Is* in fact this blog concerned solely with Britons, with Ukrainians being considered merely “foreigners?” Or, the Ukraine being included in that map in the upper left hand corner of the home page, are Ukrainians of interest being a white, European people? “...the Ukrainians as a nationality—if they are a nationality, something many anthropologists would also dispute.” “Many anthropologists” would also dispute the biological validity of race. Who cares what they think? Ukrainians identify as a distinct people. It remains to be seen how much they differ, if at all, from Russians, in genetic tests. There may well be overlap between Ukrainians and southern Russians (but, perhaps northern Russians may have Finno-Ugric/Baltic influences), but overap does not necessarily mean that the modal types are identical. 10
Posted by Drunken Cossack Smirnoff on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 15:50 | # “overlap”, not “overap” One wonders though what Slavic rap music would be like… Goble: http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/2001/august/Sa21141.htm Apparently, not Russian or Slavic at all, but a busybody “expert” from the failed western half of European civilization coming east to tell the Slavs to commit ethnic suicide as well. Hey, Goble can recruit Fareed Zakaria and “Gene Expression” to assist - you can’t beat South Asians for promoting western self-destruction. Guys like Zakaria and GC would make a better “Clement Dio” than any North African journalist. Jean Raspail take note. 11
Posted by Bo Sears on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 18:58 | # Interesting AP article in the San Jose Mercury News today on the Holodomor. This article, as so many others, places blame at one person’s feet and otherwise obscures the facts of this genocide: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/16101732.htm?source=rss For more Holodomor news stories, check out: http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=Ukraine + Holodomor&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&fr2=tab-web One benchmark by which we can recognize that we are being lied to about the Holodomor is when writers blame the genocide on Stalin personally and ignore that the Holodomor’s nature, duration, timing, goals, and outcome were explicitly commonplace tools of the Bolshevik Party. But at least some facts are coming out. 12
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:58 | # Guessedworker, I don’t see Putin as responsible for the split between Land and Sea as you put it. The US/Great Britain/Israel axis has done quite enough of that itself. Now this doesn’t mean Putin isn’t exploiting the split so created but then the question: “Que Bono?” arises. Who benefits? It seems ultimately the mutual alienation of our nations across the northern reaches of the world benefits migrants from the south with a theocratic mindset—whether their theocracy be Islam or Holocaustianity or some form of worship of Africa. 13
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:06 | # Amalek, you denounce Lemkin’s mendacity in his proposed definition of “genocide” but whether Lemkin was mendacious or not, the Geneva Convention quite rightly adopted a definition of “genocide” that defended nationalism—the great and true diversity of separate and equally sovereign cultures (contrasted with the pseudo-“diversity” of <a >heterosity (novel localized diversity)</a>. It is apparent that the internationalist aspect of communism is the primary source of genocide, in its proper definition, in modern times. Taking a quote of Rosenbaum provided by Desmond Jones:
Now, I do happen to agree that the primary problem with the modern world is not the intent of the parties who are committing genocide—hence it is not genocide that is the enemy. If I could sum up the enemy in a single phrase it would be “unenlightened genetic self-interest”—which can be entirely unconscious and even self-deceptive and operate from high central places or from low places en masse. The intent to replace genuine diversity with heterosity is not necessary to realize this evil. 15
Posted by Kenelm Digby on Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:36 | # I’ve just read Ralph Peters’ rant at the link posted, and by Jove, it was the biggest heap of poop that I’ve readfor a longtime - and that surely is a record that needs beating. 16
Posted by Bo Sears on Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:13 | # Can Defamation Ever Be A Good Thing? That’s certainly a curious question from someone identified with the anti-defamation movement, but there are two answers. First, sometimes anti-white defamatory texts counter-act other texts. I have in mind the gloom & doom defeatist texts by which Mark Steyn-wannabes tell us all is lost, that Euros (Europeans and European-descendants) have lost that spark that tells them land & territory are important, and that culture & kin are critical for the future. Sometimes the defamatory material is so over-the-top that it warms the heart the way a brutal, hatchet-wielding cheer-leader would warm the heart. We Euros are so surrounded with defeatist propaganda that it cheers us up to read just how positive we can be in the kinds of conflicts discussed in the Ralph Peters essay, mentioned above, whether the specifics are true or not. There’s something uplifting and exciting in coming to understand that somebody, anybody fears us and our inherent willingness to stand firm at some line. Second, a text like that by Ralph Peters is what we call a parade of horribles. An essay that recites lots of bad stuff we are alleged to have done to the Other, and fails to mention bad stuff done by the Other to Euros, is obviously defamatory on its face, but it provides us with a test and that test is, can you read the whole thing, and laugh, and keep a clear head and heart? Which is to say, have you graduated beyond being impressed or moved by this kind of stuff? This is a goal we need to avoid being silenced or subordinated. That’s one of the reasons we argue that Euros need not base anti-defamatory claims on “being offended.” Who needs to be offended when so much of the text provides such a clear window into the twisted, hateful mind of Ralph Peters? We could deconstruct his rant very easily simply by interrogating his mental health. We would like to gently point out to Kenelm Digby (posting just above) that rebutting anti-white hate speech with more anti-white hate speech (American Indians, African Americans, Latino marches) just advances Ralph Peters’ petty goal. Bashing white Americans to defend white Europeans is pretty much a non-starter. Anyway, the entire Ralph Peters essay should be made a part of this discussion for the thrill of “yes, we are still winners” and to see how far we have advanced in hardening our minds and hearts against parades of horribles designed to silence us and to make us submit.
November 26, 2006—A RASH of pop prophets tell us that Muslims in Europe are reproducing so fast and European societies are so weak and listless that, before you know it, the continent will become “Eurabia,” with all those topless gals on the Riviera wearing veils. Well, maybe not. The notion that continental Europeans, who are world-champion haters, will let the impoverished Muslim immigrants they confine to ghettos take over their societies and extend the caliphate from the Amalfi Coast to Amsterdam has it exactly wrong. The endangered species isn’t the “peace loving” European lolling in his or her welfare state, but the continent’s Muslims immigrants - and their multi-generation descendents - who were foolish enough to imagine that Europeans would share their toys. In fact, Muslims are hardly welcome to pick up the trash on Europe’s playgrounds. Don’t let Europe’s current round of playing pacifist dress-up fool you: This is the continent that perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing, the happy-go-lucky slice of humanity that brought us such recent hits as the Holocaust and Srebrenica. THE historical patterns are clear: When Europeans feel sufficiently threatened - even when the threat’s concocted nonsense - they don’t just react, they over-react with stunning ferocity. One of their more-humane (and frequently employed) techniques has been ethnic cleansing. And Europeans won’t even need to re-write “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” with an Islamist theme - real Muslims zealots provide Europe’s bigots with all the propaganda they need. Al Qaeda and its wannabe fans are the worst thing that could have happened to Europe’s Muslims. Europe hasn’t broken free of its historical addictions - we’re going to see Europe’s history reprised on meth. The year 1492 wasn’t just big for Columbus. It’s also when Spain expelled its culturally magnificent Jewish community en masse - to be followed shortly by the Moors, Muslims who had been on the Iberian Peninsula for more than 800 years. Jews got the boot elsewhere in Europe, too - if they weren’t just killed on the spot. When Shakespeare wrote “The Merchant of Venice,” it’s a safe bet he’d never met a Jew. The Chosen People were long-gone from Jolly Olde England. From the French expulsion of the Huguenots right down to the last century’s massive ethnic cleansings, Europeans have never been shy about showing “foreigners and subversives” the door. And Europe’s Muslims don’t even have roots, by historical standards. For the Europeans, they’re just the detritus of colonial history. When Europeans feel sufficiently provoked and threatened - a few serious terrorist attacks could do it - Europe’s Muslims will be lucky just to be deported. Sound impossible? Have the Europeans become too soft for that sort of thing? Has narcotic socialism destroyed their ability to hate? Is their atheism a prelude to total surrender to faith-intoxicated Muslim jihadis? The answer to all of the above questions is a booming “No!” The Europeans have enjoyed a comfy ride for the last 60 years - but the very fact that they don’t want it to stop increases their rage and sense of being besieged by Muslim minorities they’ve long refused to assimilate (and which no longer want to assimilate). WE don’t need to gloss over the many Muslim acts of barbarism down the centuries to recognize that the Europeans are just better at the extermination process. From the massacre of all Muslims and Jews (and quite a few Eastern Christians) when the Crusaders reached Jerusalem in 1099 to the massacre of all the Jews in Buda (not yet attached to Pest across the Danube) when the “liberating” Habsburg armies retook the citadel at the end of the 17th century, Europeans have just been better organized for genocide. It’s the difference between the messy Turkish execution of the Armenian genocide and the industrial efficiency of the Holocaust. Hey, when you love your work, you get good at it. Far from enjoying the prospect of taking over Europe by having babies, Europe’s Muslims are living on borrowed time. When a third of French voters have demonstrated their willingness to vote for Jean-Marie Le Pen’s National Front - a party that makes the Ku Klux Klan seem like Human Rights Watch - all predictions of Europe going gently into that good night are surreal. I have no difficulty imagining a scenario in which U.S. Navy ships are at anchor and U.S. Marines have gone ashore at Brest, Bremerhaven or Bari to guarantee the safe evacuation of Europe’s Muslims. After all, we were the only ones to do anything about the slaughter of Muslims in the Balkans. And even though we botched it, our effort in Iraq was meant to give the Middle East’s Muslims a last chance to escape their self-inflicted misery. AND we’re lucky. The United States attracts the quality. American Muslims have a higher income level than our national average. We hear about the handful of rabble-rousers, but more of our fellow Americans who happen to be Muslims are doctors, professors and entrepreneurs. And the American dream is still alive and well, thanks: Even the newest taxi driver stumbling over his English grammar knows he can truly become an American. But European Muslims can’t become French or Dutch or Italian or German. Even if they qualify for a passport, they remain second-class citizens. On a good day. And they’re supposed to take over the continent that’s exported more death than any other? All the copy-cat predictions of a Muslim takeover of Europe not only ignore history and Europe’s ineradicable viciousness, but do a serious disservice by exacerbating fear and hatred. And when it comes to hatred, trust me: The Europeans don’t need our help. The jobless and hopeless kids in the suburbs may burn a couple of cars, but we’ll always have Paris. 17
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 28 Nov 2006 03:51 | # Sorry Bo, I still can’t stomach it, the thing of his you posted — bailed out at the end of the fourth pargraph. I tried, I really did. Tried my best. I think I need more work, that’s all. Look ... I’ll keep going over what you said just above and then come back in six months to a year and try again — maybe by then I’ll be able to get all the way through it. Not now, though. Definitely not now. I’m just not ready for it. I can take some pretty strong stuff, from some pretty nauseating assholes, but that stuff by this piece of excrement ... well ... it’ll take a strong man to get all the way through that, Bo, is all I can say. I just haven’t got that kind of strength right now. 18
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 28 Nov 2006 06:00 | # Ive skimmed through it, and I believe Mr Peters to be what we in Britain (Oz, NZ etc) call a ‘wanker’. That would be on a good day. 19
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 28 Nov 2006 07:57 | #
You’re a better man than I am, Lurker. You must be a tower of strength with nerves of steel and a cast-iron stomach, not to have heaved your last two meals all over your keyboard and monitor. 20
Posted by Bo Sears on Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:08 | # Parades of Horribles Maybe we in the USA are more accustomed to parades of horribles. They are everywhere here, school texts, films, videos, television (especially history channel and the federally-subsidized TV public stations), ordinary news articles, op-ed pieces, and so on. We are awash in essays about our evil white nature and demonic Euro history. At our Resisting Defamation meetings we would read a parade of horribles essay aloud and then talk about how we were growing (or not) in the strength of not being moved by the rhetoric, and how we were doing in terms of not being silenced by such parades nor feeling “less than” others. These articles are fully designed to be dynamite sticks taped to your emotional body, shaming and silencing you on demand. Over a few months, especially once a person knows it is a collection of artful anecdotes, that person can have most of his or her symptoms reduced and can name the phenomenon correctly. We see it as a kind of white liberation on the emotional level which is where the principal bulls-eye is painted. It takes time to harden your heart and your mind until you can read that stuff and not be moved at all, except for a reminder that the Other really, really hates us and seeks to poison our children’s minds and hearts. 21
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 29 Nov 2006 01:27 | # The same genocide-through-demography strategy being applied by Moscow to the Russian people is, of course, being aggressively pursued by élites all over the West. Up today over at The Dawn Patrol: Someone named Ann Furedi who heads what is apparently the U.K. counterpart of U.S. abortion-mill umbrella organization Planned Barrenhood applauds “the many groups of people in society” who view pregnancy as “being a victim of uncontrolled fertility” and see abortion as “a more responsible response” to that “victimhood” than having a baby:
Does that quote belong in the “Must be Seen to be Believed” department or whaaat??? [George Orwell, please call your office!] 22
Posted by Rnl on Fri, 01 Dec 2006 18:50 | # Amalek wrote: By no stretch of imagination was the Ukraine collectivisation famine ‘genocide’, even using the mendacious original definition of Lemkin. (Attempting to wipe out the Jews of Europe is not the same as wiping out all of Jewry, assuming you still believe that was what the Germans were up to.) Amelek has fallen into a common error. It shouldn’t be an error, but it is. He is assuming that “genocide” means what its constituent parts suggest that it should mean. Unfortunately it doesn’t. Lemkin’s initial term was “mass slaughter”; he also spoke more vaguely of “barbarism.” He later replaced “mass slaughter” with “genocide,” and he explicitly modelled his neologism on “homicide.” So a genocide should be like a homicide, but with a much longer list of victims. If I commit a homicide, the victim of my homicide is dead; he won’t be around to write books about his victimization or to erect memorials commemorating it. If I commit suicide, I’m dead. After a regicide a king is dead; after a patricide the perpetrator’s father is dead. A genocide should therefore be the physical elimination of a _genos_ (“tribe, race”), some specific racial or ethnic group. That’s what the word’s constituent parts, as well as the example of similar words ending in -cide, indicate that it should mean. With some small semantic trickery “genocide” could, perhaps, be plausibly extended to mean also an unsuccessful _attempt_ to eliminate a genos. But it means neither: it doesn’t in practice mean either the actual physical elimination of a genos or an unsuccessful attempt to physically eliminate a genos. It really means what Lemkin originally said—a mass slaughter. And not any mass slaughter, but a mass slaughter perpetrated by a majority against a minority. Over the years there have been further expansions of the word’s referents, but mass slaughter by a majority of members of a minority has always in practice been its core meaning, as Lemkin intended. Only once in his book did he admit that by “group” as he used it he meant only minority groups. His recipe included no brief for the protection of a putative majority anywhere; as a consequence of the way he approached the subject philosophically and psychologically, he was unable to conceive of a situation where a majority group might be the one in grave danger of disappearance. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p-19_Martin.html Lemkin’s prewar examples of mass slaughter included the Turkish massacre of Armenians (now the “Armenian Genocide”) and the killing of Assyrian Christians in the early 1930s. In the latter case six hundred Christians were killed, so there could have been no thought in Lemkin’s mind that such mass slaughters by definition implied an intention to physically eliminate an entire group. It is wrong to slaughter six hundred people, but only a very small genos could be physically eliminated by the deaths of six hundred of its members. If we take “genocide,” following the barely plausible interpretation of its constituent parts, to mean an attempt by a majority to physically eliminate a minority, then the Holodomor would not count as a genocide, as Amalek rightly pointed out. Stalin and Kaganovich expected there would be Ukrainians left after the mass starvation they caused, just as Hitler assumed, as his _Table Talk_ indicates, that there would be a large number of Jews alive in Europe after the war. Pol Pot clearly expected there would be a large number of Cambodians alive for him to tyrannize after the end of the genocide he inflicted on his own people; he didn’t envision a future Cambodia with himself as the only remaining Cambodian. In these cases, and in many others, the word “genocide” literally tells us nothing about the events to which it is attached, other than the fact that mass slaughters have occurred. “Genocide” means only that the slaughter in question was very bad. It offers a convenient way of strongly expressing one’s moral disapproval of a particular mass slaughter: “I strongly disapprove of the killings of Black Christians in Darfur; therefore the Sudanese government is guilty of genocide.” Knowing what the word “genocide” _should mean_ conveys no additional information about this event. Owning a dictionary and caring about the meaning of words are liabilities in understanding “genocide.” That imprecision makes “genocide” useful as a political weapon in the hands of the unscrupulous. The word carries the moral weight of what it ought to denote, viz. mass killing on an almost unprecedented scale, but it can nevertheless be attached, with few objections, to run-of-the-mill slaughters, such as the Serb massacre of Muslim men at Srebrenica, which is now officially a “genocide,” with all the legal consequences that genocide entails, the abrogation of national sovereignty being the most significant. The “Srebrenica genocide” may have had as few as three thousand victims, many of them combatants; but because it has been successfully labeled a genocide, it carries far more moral weight than, say, the bombing of Baghdad or Israel’s latest foray into Lebanon. Hence the desire of globalists, hostile to the idea of sovereign nations, to discover as many genocides as they can lay their hands on. Each new genocide offers the possibility of humanitarian intervention (killing in a good cause) and, if everything goes well, international show trials, like the ICTY kangaroo court at the Hague. Srebrenica Revisited The article above has been defined as an exercise in “Srebrenica genocide denial,” which makes its author morally akin to someone who spends her leisure hours desecrating graves. The manifest failure of Srebrenica to live up to its billing as a world-class genocide has generated this new label, “Srebrenica genocide denial,” which is of course modelled on “Holocaust denial.” The mere fact of the successful imposition of “genocide” on the Srebrenica massacre—a massacre which no one actually denies, if “deny” retains its ordinary meaning—has produced Srebrenica genocide denial and several Srebrenica genocide deniers, who become guilty of “denying the genocide” or (almost as bad) “reducing its scope” (i.e. reducing the number of dead on the basis of evidence.) You could in fact become a Srebrenica genocide denier even if you believed every word of the official story, but were unwilling for some reason to describe the massacre as a genocide. You might only be burdened by the possession of a dictionary: “genocide - the systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group” (American Heritage Dictionary). All of us have different events that orientate our thinking on various issues. For me the orientating event for “genocide” is this bizarre, highly politicized creation of a “genocide” erected on top of a predictable slaughter that occurred during a terrible civil war, which the good guys lost and the bad guys won, and the consequent creation, now a regular corollary of a successful imposition of the label “genocide” on an event, of a class of sinister thought-criminals whose primary offense is a reasoned belief that the mass slaughter in question had several thousand fewer victims than commonly advertised. “Genocide” is at best imprecise as a word, but it is increasingly precise in its political effects.
The paragraphs below, which appear at the end of Wikipedia’s hopelessly biased Srebrenica article, are either remarkably dishonest or mindlessly dogmatic. I suspect, however, that most of the article’s readers will see only a dispassionate account of this “genocide” and of the twisted minds who deny it: Srebrenica genocide denial and revisionism Srebrenica genocide denial is the belief that the Srebrenica genocide did not occur, or that far fewer than around 8,000 Bosniaks were killed by the Bosnian Serb Army (numbers below 5,000, most often around 2,000 are typically cited); that there never was a centrally-planned Bosnian Serb Army’s attempt to exterminate the Bosniaks of Srebrenica; and/or that there were not mass killings at the extermination sites. Those who hold this position often further claim that Bosniaks and/or Western media know that the Srebrenica genocide never occurred, yet that they are engaged in a massive conspiracy to maintain the illusion of a Srebrenica genocide to further their political agenda. These views are not accepted as credible by objective historians. [64] [65] Srebrenica genocide deniers almost always prefer to be called Srebrenica genocide revisionists [66] (this is not only due to the less negative connotations of the second term, but also because such persons often advocate a reduced number of deaths, and therefore do not wish for a word to be used that implies they are denying the actual occurence of the event.) However, most scholars contend that the latter term is misleading. Historical revisionism is a well-accepted part of the study of history; it is the reexamination of historical facts, with an eye towards updating histories with newly discovered, more accurate, or less biased information. The implication is that history as it has been traditionally told may not be entirely accurate. The term historical revisionism has a second meaning, the illegitimate manipulation of history for political purposes. For example, many scholars allege that Srebrenica genocide deniers willfully misuse or ignore historical records in order to attempt to prove their conclusions. [67] 23
Posted by Rnl on Fri, 01 Dec 2006 18:57 | # Amelek wrote: For MR.com to embrace such tu-quoque blather is another example of ‘enemy capture’- thinking like globalists and ideologues instead of taking the conservative line that most people, in all times and places, are too lazy to be really wicked and too stupid to make their wickedness as effective as their enemies would wish you to believe. Everything in this sentence is wrong. WN interest in the Holodomor is not _tu quoque_, since most of us don’t believe that we have ever done anything comparable. And the event itself is hardly blather. We can quibble over what label should be applied to the event and over how many Ukrainians died during the event, but the mass starvation itself is an historical fact. We should be more disturbed by mass killing of our own people than by mass killing of another people. The current practice of commemorating atrocities is, to my mind, very strange; but if we are to commemorate atrocities, we should commemorate an atrocity inflicted against our own people. Insofar as there are any suspect political objectives in WN Holodomor commemoration, they involve only a legitimate desire to demonstrate that the Jewish Holocaust has real competitors in the Worst Atrocity in History Competition, which began in the mid-1960s. Since no White atrocity promoter organized this strange competition, our only offense is deciding that, rather than allowing one well-financed contestant to win each year by default, we should enter our own atrocity in the race, confident in his ability to defeat our principal rival. Finally, the conservative line, beginning with Burke, is almost the exact opposite of what Amalek describes. 24
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 03 Dec 2006 04:02 | # For the record: You Have Been Misled As to the Meaning of the Word “Genocide” You have been taught that nationalism is the primary source of “genocide”—that nationalists perpetrate “genocide” and that ridding the world of nationalism is an important, perhaps the most important step in eradicating the threat of “genocide”. Rafael Lemkin and his work with the Geneva Conventions led the term “genocide” to be incorporated into the Geneva Conventions. Here is Lemkin’s definition: “Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity but as members of a national group.” Cited in “Beyond the 1948 Convention—Emerging principles of Genocide in Customary International Law,” Maryland Journal of International Law and Trade, vol. 17, no. 2, Fall 1993, ppp. 193-226. The conclusion is inescapable: Those who have taught you that “genocide can be eradicated by eradicating nationalism” are actually perpetrators of genocide under its proper definition within the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, since the pervasive teaching of this ideology has been the primary moral force for the disintegration of, not one, but most national identities during the last half of the 20th century, its teachers have been and are by definition the primary perpetrators of genocide over the last half century. 26
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 03 Dec 2006 11:02 | # I second Fred on that. James, it would be a worthy endeavour to catalogue the “fit” of our programmatic dispossession and cultural destruction and loss of distinctiveness to Lemkin’s definition. It should be attempted in a scholarly, evidentially-based manner, ideally by an academic, perhaps an historian or political scientist, so that it can be published through the conventional channels. 27
Posted by Rnl on Sun, 03 Dec 2006 21:11 | # I assume most here have read this, but just in case: Stalin’s Willing Executioners? 28
Posted by Steven Palese on Sun, 03 Dec 2006 21:38 | # Also of interest: Article 7 of the “United Nations draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples” (26 August 1994) defines “Cultural genocide” (emphasis added)[1]: Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right not to be subjected to ethnocide and cultural genocide, including prevention of and redress for: (a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities; Examples The Government of Tibet in Exile and its supporters use the term to describe the activities of the People’s Republic of China in Tibet which it claims is destroying ancient Tibetan culture and religion. The activities which the Government in Exile accuses the Chinese government of performing include closing Tibetan Buddhist temples and encouraging outside immigration into Tibet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_genocide A post I was reading earlier described how hate speech laws have started backfiring on pro-semitic bigots. If I was a multiculturalist racial engineer, I’d be concerned about how this type of law may be interpreted in the future. 29
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 04 Dec 2006 02:36 | # According to the definition of cultural genocide in Steven Palese’s comment Bush, Blair, and Prof. Alon Ziv could be hauled up right now on charges. People on our side may think this sort of thing is beneath them but the courts are exactly how the other side has made most of its gains, being of course unable to make them through the ballot box. 30
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 04 Dec 2006 04:15 | # The problem with the courts is the infestation of ethnic nepotism directed at dispossessing the majority. It isn’t merely “beneath” us to use the courts—it is inordinately risky to expect any real justice out of them in our case. 31
Posted by Amalek on Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:32 | # The conclusion is inescapable It is indeed. No matter how great or small the death toll, nor how centrally directed and intentional the collectivisation famine, there was no genocide in the Ukraine as per Lemkin’s definition- and he invented the wretched word. The correct response to Judaic use of the g-word is a bucket of cold water followed by a gout of acidic derision—not a desperate scrounge round to find an equivalent atrocity in which Jews can be implicated. We should not play the blame game and waggling shrouds at every turn. The white man didn’t get where he is today by whining and showing his collective, ancient-historical and fabricated sores like a schnorrer. 32
Posted by Bo Sears on Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:02 | # It appears to me that Amalek pursues very serious goals. He says, “The correct response to Judaic use of the g-word is a bucket of cold water followed by a gout of acidic derision—not a desperate scrounge round to find an equivalent atrocity in which Jews can be implicated.” This seems to be founded on a natural Euro (Europeans & European Americans, European Australians, etc.) revulsion toward slippery, overly-clever name creations by persons from the great Semitic nations. Our natural Euro minds demand clean, crisp language and resists tricksy usages. In fact, in the posting called “Man Bites Dog,” an enemy of our people named Boris Stomakhin is quoted as saying, “Russians must be killed, and only killed — they lack those normal, clever, intelligent ones who you could talk with and rely on their understanding.” It doesn’t take a lot of insight to understand just who Stomakhin would include among the “normal, clever, intelligent ones you could talk with and rely on their understanding.” Whatever else Stomakhin might be, he understands his perception of the difference between Euro man and Semitic man, and isn’t afraid to articulate it. The mystery is why Stomakhin wants to stay in Russia amongst all the unintelligent ones, when he could so easily leave and join the clever ones.
There’s certainly no need to scrounge round because it is not hard to find atrocities by the Semitic peoples. We are living in a unique time when the Semitic cousins are fighting the bloody, murderous battles of the so-called Old Testament all over again. Every newspaper and most TV news programs dwell on the battles of Southwest Asia which demonstrate the characteristics of all the great Semitic nations for the last 3,000 years. We are literally surrounded with the bad news of village, family, kin, and nation destruction in the great wars between the Semitic cousins. There is simply no need to scrounge round to find evidence of whole-scale atrocities, they are all around us today. There is also no need to use the term genocide to make points. We in Resisting Defamation seek to cleanse our vocabularies of Semitic constructions for this particular reason. And certainly quoting Lemkin is a non-starter. However, what happened in Ukraine should be explored to find out the who, what, when, where, and why of what happened. When granaries storing corn and wheat are emptied by grasping agents of a cruel government just 70 years ago, it fully behooves us to understand that Euro man stands trembling at the brink of a governmentally-caused famine because of our consolidation in urban gulags and our loss of agriculture skills. If the government ever wanted to bring its people to their knees, a repeat performance of the Ukraine famine would suffice. We don’t need to exploit the Ukrainian experience as a device in debates, but we do need to understand how the “clever, intelligent ones” could seize a family’s last storehouse of food knowing starvation was thereby that family’s fate. Whatever you want to call it, it is a scary possibility and we need to actively wonder if such a tactic might not yet be carried out against Euro man. So Ukraine in the thirties has important lessons for us including the lesson as to how we were kept ignorant of such an atrocity for so many decades. No, don’t use Ukraine as a propaganda weapon. That’s disrespectful to the victims of the man-made famine. Yes, do learn all you can about the Ukraine famine to seek ways to avoid this solution being imposed on us, trapped as we are, in the large cities around the world. 33
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:13 | # The other option is to step around it. Ths is the tactic used by the Israeli government regarding the Armenian genocide. “This issue [of the Armenian Genocide] should be dealt with by historians and not politicians.” There are non-racialists, on the ‘right’, who will support this position because they are wed to the universalism of free speech. The argument goes like this:
Although Mr. Sears makes a good point vis-a-vis famines use as a political tool, those that suffered in the Holodomor were people in the countryside. Food was taken from the folks on the farm to feed those in the city. As Mugabe discovered, destroying the white farmers meant the destruction of his own people. 34
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:21 | # Whites dominate US farming: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/us/st99_1_047_047.pdf 35
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 05 Dec 2006 02:08 | #
Yes, such a tactic might very well be resorted to against Euro man in future. In fact, all around us we see what amount to “practice runs” in the form of loss of rights for “white people who hate.” The other side invented the criminal category of “hate,” and once a Euro is successfully tarred with the “hater” brush the widely accepted view among the public, a view that’s been assiduously inculcated these forty years, is he, as a “hater,” deserves whatever punishments can be meted out whether legal or extralegal, including loss of life, no matter: as a “hater,” the worst thing someone can be, he’s forfeited his rights, he’s pure evil, he’s now an animal and as such can be slaughtered like the mad dog he is. It’s his fault for being a “hater.” If he expected human treatment, if he expected human rights, he should’ve decided not to “hate.” As someone who “hates,” he’ll get instead what he richly deserves. It’s like Jeffrey Dahmer. No one shed a tear — nor should anyone have, of course — when he was bludgeoned to death in prison (by a mentally deranged fellow prisoner): Dahmer’s crimes were such that his own final bludgeoning was an act of justice. Well, anyone who “hates” places himself in the same category, in the mind of the public (thanks to four decades of non-stop Pavlovian conditioning): as a “hater” he has no rights and doesn’t even deserve to live. That whole line of propaganda has succeeded, its “teachings” now firmly entrenched in the public’s mind. Therefore if government of the future wanted to eliminate a segment of the population through systematic starvation or whatever means, it would need only a propaganda campaign labeling those targeted for elimination as “people who hate” for mass murder to be accepted unquestioningly by the broad public. Once the “hater” label stuck, government would be free to hunt down those targeted, imprison them, kill them, do whatever it wanted to them with impunity — sell them into slavery, rape all their women( * ), kill all their children, whatever: no one would lift a finger to protect them, it being inconceivable to want to accord fair treatment to “haters,” or even to find out if they did anything wrong. They’re “haters,” aren’t they? Then of course they did something wrong! They did everything wrong, starting with drawing breath! Kill them, don’t stand around asking what they did wrong! Just get rid of them! They “hate,” don’t they? That’s wrong enough! Here’s Vladimir Bukovsky:
______ ( * Which is exactly what the U.S. did to Germans after the surrender in 1945: as “haters” and therefore beings devoid of humanity and rights, Germans both POWs and civilians were killed in their millions after the surrender, three million of the twelve million civilians brutally cleared out of centuries-old and thousand-year-old Prussian German lands killed; Germans both POWs who normally were supposed to be simply disarmed, demobilized, and sent home, and German civilians completely innocent of any wrongdoing, were rounded up and given over as slaves to Stalin never to be heard of again, finally perishing after years and decades in his slave-labor gulags; German women and girls were systematically raped (and often worse) on a vast scale by the Red Army invaders of 1945 in a situation clearly ordered from the top, along the lines of “once you fight your way onto German territory take off the gloves and teach these fascists a lesson they’ll never forget!” Germans were “haters,” you see, and therefore had all this coming! It was perfectly OK to do all this to them. We Euros of today are “haters” too, by definition, and will get exactly the same treatment the minute the other side feels strong enough. Its campaign labeling us as “haters” is to prepare the terrain for what’s coming: it’s already busily laying the unmistakable groundwork for that which is to happen next ...) 36
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 05 Dec 2006 02:14 | #
The Kulaks dominated Ukrainian farming too. Uhhhhh ..... that is, until around 1933 or thereabouts, they did ... You see, it’s strange but ... a funny thing happened to them ... They wound up exterminated ... When government comes and takes all your grain at the point of a gun, then drags you off too because they don’t like the look on your face as they’re doing it, to be summarily shot or sent to the gulag to perish, we see who dominates farming once government ideology that’s anti-Kulak (back then) or anti-Euro (next time: our turn) steps into the picture. 37
Posted by Steven Palese on Tue, 05 Dec 2006 04:10 | # “there was no genocide in the Ukraine as per Lemkin’s definition- and he invented the wretched word.” Amalek, have you been downloading MP3s again?
38
Posted by Steven Palese on Tue, 05 Dec 2006 04:36 | # On a more serious note, our Christian traditions make it hard for us to copycat Jews when it comes to victimology (though we have plenty to whine about):
Israel Shamir - A Yiddishe Medina. Basically, our religious tradition is based on forgiveness, theirs on vengeance. And this makes a difference. 39
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 05 Dec 2006 05:14 | # Excellent link. Thank you Steven. The cupidity of the Jews is merely superficial, their true agenda being racial supremacy and the defeat of their hated Aryan enemies. 40
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 05 Dec 2006 08:47 | # Amalek can be as derisive as he wants but he is going counter to the reality of the definition of genocide and what happened in the Ukraine. It was not Lemkin’s original definition of genocide, the definition adopted by the Geneva Convention, that was mendacious but rather the subsequent, illegal, twisting of the definition legally agreed upon. The legal definition is valid and important. Nations are the wealth of humanity. The destruction of nations deprives humanity of that wealth. This is why the Geneva Convention signed the agreement to that definition and it was a good reason. Nor is it really in dispute, except by Amalek, that the goal of the Soviets during the Holodomor was anti-nationalist, hence genocidal by the legally agreed-to definition. The fact that Jew coined the term to characterize the actions by Germans toward Jews in Germany is neither here nor there. He used language that nations could support because they were reasonable as was the language itself regardless of Lemkin’s mendacious intent and the subsequent mendacious twisting of the definition. It is applicable not only to European nations today but to many others under assault by globalist anti-nationalist forces and all of these anti-nationalist assaults are properly decried. 41
Posted by Rnl on Sat, 09 Dec 2006 07:04 | # Column One: Jews Wake Up! Caroline Glick, THE JERUSALEM POST [...] Next Thursday, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations Malcolm Hoenlein and former ambassador to the UN Dore Gold will hold a press conference in New York where they will call for the US to indict Ahmadinejad under the International Convention Against Genocide for his call to annihilate Israel. This is doubtlessly a welcome initiative. But it is insufficient. 42
Posted by Rnl on Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:56 | # Forms of Mass Murder 43
Posted by Applebaum on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:57 | # Anne Applebaum isn’t just any bracket, she has an influential opinion on matters of
And she is married to Radosław Sikorski, a clear insider in Polish politics. In this case, therefore, we can gain some insight into a bracketed perspective on Ukraine, specifically the history of Soviet policy that led to the Holodomor. There is also some discussion of other tactics of suppression applied to Ukrainian politics in those times and more recently, which mirror tactics that the Kremlin applied to the last US election. Unsurprisingly, Applebaum is going to make the perspective on the Holodomor kosher, but by the same token, she isn’t denying it, but rather providing considerable detail. Some of it helpful; and it is almost easy to forget that there was a Stalin in the equation as well if all you listen to is David Duke. A great injustice was done to the Ukrainian people (and Tartars) and there was a great deal of race replacement of ethnic Ukrainians (and Tartars) by Russians that were moved there in the wake of these policies against the “kulaks” - so called wealthy land owners; i.e., any farmer who owned his own land and was productive. After taking in a few factors that the current state of WN are prone to downplay then, we can assess how the brackets are dancing around certain issues and we can round out the puzzle by adding what we know about Kaganovich’s part, etc:
Post a comment:
Next entry: Quote of yesterday: Blair to express his “sorrow” for the slave trade
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 05 May 2024 22:12. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 05 May 2024 12:56. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 05 May 2024 10:23. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 05 May 2024 09:44. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 05 May 2024 04:57. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 05 May 2024 02:34. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 03 May 2024 23:04. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 04:26. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 03:35. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 03:12. (View) |
</img>
Posted by Polonium Dioxin on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:03 | #
What’s Putin doing about this?:
http://washingtontimes.com/world/20061120-115904-9135r.htm
(Note the last sentence of this story which, as is typical of such demographic analyses, absolutely assumes the inevitablity of the projected changes).
Throwing a few roubles at women is not going to cut it. Russia needs perhaps fewer ICBMs and more think tanks and ethnopolitical groups actively investigating the collapse of ethnic Russian demographics and putting forth workable ideas to stop its decline.
The first thing to do - and is western Europe listening - is to STOP the influx of (fast breeding) aliens.
What’s wrong? Not enough workers? Not enough young men for the army?
Good. Instead of a destructive short-term solution, an enforced ban on immigrants will underscore the shortage of ethnic Russians, and create an enormous “market” push on the government to do something about it.
Scarcity increases value. If the Russian government eschews the option of using immigrants to make up the demographic shortfall, then they will be *forced* to take drastic action to change course.
As long as they have chechens and others popping out 10 babies apiece, and as long as idiots can talk about “assimilation” of these aliens into the Russian nation, then the decline in ethnic Russians will be more palatable to guys like Putin, who seem more concerned with the power of the “Russian” state, rather than the well-being and ethnic continuity of the Russian people.
The prescription for Russia must be the exact opposite of this report: *more* intolerance, *less* “assimilation”, *fewer* immigrants (best: none at all, coupled with repatriation - and if necessary, independence for these aliens so they have nations to be repatriated to).
Cut off the “pallative” (sic) of migrants, and *force* the nation to come face-to-face with the population shortfall and all its consequences.
Then and only then will it be addressed.