This week In #WhiteGenocide - 5
Playing the Trump Card Against #WhiteGenocide
Horus - @eurorabbit
Enoch - @J_Enoch_Powell
Asgardian - @warowhites
FashGordon - @ratlinesmemes
Truck Roy - StormFront Radio
Special Guest - ElectrE B.B - @ElectrelsMore
:30 - Introduction
1:45 - Multiculturalism, Trump, Action-Reaction-Solution
11:50 - Mindset of Power & Political Victory
15:30 - Goy Friends - Oy Vey
19:15 - Energy Flow and Trump Control
25:00 - Haircuts, Homos and Mainstream National Socialism
37:04 - Elite Wild Cards & "White Kid" Preservation
46:02 - The Resistance vs. The Beta Male Machine
49:56 - All In The Family against #WhiteGenocide
51:20 - Special Guest ElectrE from France
Greg Paulson
Author’s note:
I borrowed a lot from Greg Johnson’s essay, Dealing with the Holocaust, which I think is important for a deeper understanding of the issue in general and for the position I advocate.
This may seem counter-intuitive, but a common mistake pro-White advocates make in combating White genocide is disputing the alleged facts of anti-White historical narratives.
By challenging the details of anti-White historical narratives, whether it be the Holocaust, the Black slave trade, genocide of American Indians or the various other alleged crimes committed by Whites against non-White populations, pro-White advocates are missing and implicitly accepting—the “premise: If white racism, nationalism, self-assertion, etc. led to the holocaust, the slave trade, Jim Crow, etc., then they are evil”—the underlying mechanism used to justify White genocide.
A far more effective point of argument is that regardless of the (alleged) crimes committed by White people in the past, they do not justify White genocide or any of its anti-White components.
Besides actually being a morally true statement, it registers as such to the vast majority of White people who were taught since childhood that, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” This is a far more effective approach than trying to convince someone to question the historical “facts” that influenced the formation of their worldview and/or understanding of the world. Greg Johnson points out that
As a general rule, moral and political arguments are more convincing than historical or scientific arguments, because the latter require specialized knowledge and lengthy explanations, whereas the former can be pithily formulated and draw upon common moral and political intuitions—and generally people’s moral intuitions are healthier than the toxic moral swill ladled out by the churches, schools, and mass media.
Not only is it more effective and efficient, but it also works for every anti-White historical narrative anti-Whites use, and any more that may be invented in the future. So not only does the average White person we are trying to reach not need to spend hours researching a specific historical instance to justify what he feels is right, it also inoculates him against all other and future attempts at manipulation via anti-White historical narratives.
Additionally—and this is important—it brings the focus back to the present genocidal conditions faced by our people. It interrupts the autistic proclivity to get lost in the past and technicalities that understandably bore and annoy most people. We cannot afford to get distracted and bogged down in the past and lengthy explanations. We need that lightning focus that clearly and succinctly defeats anti-White arguments, exposing them for what they are. If we can do that and simultaneously help inoculate White people against this powerful demoralizing weapon, why wouldn’t we?
It is our own people’s grandiose propensity toward collective guilt and self-abasement that is the ultimate source of the power anti-White narratives have over us. To borrow further from Greg Johnson’s excellent essay, attacking the moral dimension of the problem is like hacking at the trunk of a tree, whereas revising historical narratives is akin to merely trimming the branches.
Once we have stopped the genocide of our people, our historians can determine what was true in the past. Until then, I encourage all of my fellow pro-White advocates to stop trimming the branches and join me in hacking away at the trunk.
Lecoquierre is the one on the left.
In the blog section of French media outlet, Nouve L’obs, a doctor wrote that any woman who votes for Front National (French anti-mass immigration party) has a “reptilian brain” and should be raped and impregnated to produce “multicolored descendants.”
Thierry Lecoquierre, a Medical Doctor from Le Havre in Upper Normandy, has been reported to the Council of Doctors for his article, which has now been deleted from the website.
His article titled “Impregnate the female of the National Front” says this:
“Right wing women do not appear less mammal than other women, even if they have a bigger than average reptilian brain . As any woman, it is subject to hormonal moods. With a feature that ethnology confirms to us : she gets especially wet for rough men.”
“These female FN sympathizers certainly offer us means to beat them. As each right-wing female appreciates the military and the macho, loathes feminist ideas, let’s play her game: Let’s take her at her own game, let’s take her and fuck her.”
“Since they give us the recipes for crossbreeding their pale race, use it against her side. Let’s sexually overcome these stupid right wing females, for the survival of a smiling humanity. Because they are stupid and easily tricked, like game going to the hunter, things should be easier. Let’s create a curly descent (not German mind you!) let’s curlify this “other-hating”, frightened France.”
“Refusing the advances of family planning, every pregnancy will result in a little half-breed or a mongrel, an artist that tomorrow she will eventually like.”
“Blacks, Negroes, gooks, Jews, leftists, gypsies, disabled, Freemasons and even my gay friends, in solidarity: bring up your hard dicks! Let our consciences sleep under the pillow, and jump on the right-wing pussies offered (unfortunately sometimes pretty!) Hail to a vast altruistic copulation. Provide multicolored descendants to the sinking country of France.”
“With one goal: kill right-wing poison in the egg.”
As of yet, there has been no reaction from French authorities to this shockingly anti-White article.
While most anti-Whites prefer to take a more subtle approach using code words like “diversity”, Lecoquierre is very blatant in saying what he wants: White genocide in France
In 2010, a rapper and sociologist joined forces to publish a book and CD both titled “F**k France.”
The General Alliance against Racism and for the Respect of French and Christian Identity (AGRIF) took them to Criminal Court in Paris, and charged them with “public insult” and “incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence.“
After five years, the court finally came to their verdict; it claimed that White people are not considered native to France under French law, so the two defendants could not be found guilty.
The court said that ‘native French’ as a group “does not cover any reality; legally, historically, biologically, or sociologically.”
It ruled that “‘Whites’ or ‘the White race’” is “in no way a legal component of the quality of the French” and apparently that “Native White French do not constitute a group of people“, according to the 1881 Act on Freedom of the Press.
Vivien Hoch, an analyst said that “in this trial, we were pushed to [consider] the concept of anti-white racism“, and “the question was whether the White French represent a group defined by law.“
While American Indians, Australian Aborigines, or New Zealand’s Maori are considered native to their respective places, certain high-ranking officials do not consider White people native to Europe, or in fact, anywhere on the planet.
This is because “Native” groups are entitled to special privileges, under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
According to this law, Indigenous groups are encouraged to “maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions“, it gives them a “right to remain distinct“, and “prohibits discrimination” against them.
Basically, it gives them the right to preserve their heritage. This is NOT what anti-Whites want Europeans to do. They want us to be eliminated from our own continent, as well as colonial countries.
They are trying to carry out this White genocide with mass non-White immigration from the third world, and with “diversity” policies, which White areas are singled out and forced to accept.
Editor: Horus talked about the "Whites are not Indigenous" legal movement on a Red Ice Interview.
Aisha, an immigrant from Dubai went to Norway and claimed to be a refugee. Despite receiving 3,000 Kroner (400 Euros) a month and free housing, she complained that it was too cold, that she had to carry her own groceries, and that she didn’t like the food.
“Honestly, I was shocked” she told NRK.no, “I thought Norway was more modern and more civilized. It was so cold there. Cold in all respect.”
“We stayed in a very small village, with only two supermarkets . . . and you had to carry all the heavy groceries back, on your own feet. It was very tough for me.”
“The food! It was the biggest problem. It was neither organic or natural.”
She withdrew her asylum application, and went back to Dubai. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) paid for her journey back home, and also gave her 20,000 kroner (2,700 Euros) as a gift.
A very large portion of “refugees” are just immigrants who know how to cheat the system to get into rich countries. That’s why this “Aisha” woman decided to go back – like most of them, she was in no danger.
Our governments know this too, but to advance their agenda, they have are trying to get as many immigrants in as possible.
They want immigrants to pour into the West (provided they’re non-White) so they can distribute them through-out every majority White country, city, town, and village. This is what they mean when they say “diversity” or “multiculturalism”.
This White Genocide.
Genocide is legally defined as a deliberate plan or agenda resulting in the “harm or destruction” of a group – it’s not necessarily violent; it can be government policies, for example.
“Diversity” is only ever forced on White areas because they are White.