“Is it not obvious to anyone with the ability still to think that, if our overlords are deliberately pursuing policies designed to reduce the population of Group A whilst massively increasing the population of Group B, they have an agenda?”
The mission of Gates of Vienna is to resist to the Islamization of the West.
As is often pointed out — not least by the proprietors of this blog — the real enemy is not Islam, but the neo-Marxists who control the political systems, major charitable organizations, media outlets, and academic institutions throughout the Western democracies. Islam would not be a problem if we had not already been traduced by our political and cultural leaders.
Ordinary people in the West are just now beginning to wake up to what has been done to them. They are discovering that they have been lied to, disempowered, disenfranchised, and trapped in a soft-totalitarian welfare state. The end game of all this is their disappearance: they are being systematically replaced by Third World immigrants who are substantially less educated, less intelligent, cheaper to hire, and more easy to manipulate — or so it is hoped.
Sarah Maid of Albion has taken a look at what is happening, and makes a compelling case that none of it is by accident. Today she published the first part of a new essay, Genocide by Stealth. The beginning of her article is excerpted below:
If one were to set out to destroy a race or ethnic group, history offers a selection of options as to how this can be achieved.
You can starve them to death in their millions, as Stalin did, and as Lenin had before him. You can force them to march through the desert until they drop dead through hunger and exhaustion as was the Turks’ preferred method of dispatching some one and a half million Armenians, whilst the world was distracted by the first World War. Alternatively if you wish to speed up the process you can shoot them, bomb them, gas them as Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds, or merely hack them to bits with machetes, by which means the Rwandans slaughtered 800,000 people in a mere 100 days during 1994.
The problem with all those tried and tested means of eradicating large groups of people, is that it is almost impossible to hide what you have done from a world community, which, in the main, considers most forms of genocide to be morally unacceptable and a breach of international law.
The exception, of course, is the ANC government in South Africa, who have, so far quite effectively, managed to portray the racially motivated slaughter of members of an ethnic minority as being merely “crime related”, painting repeated acts of genocide as an unending series of “botched burglaries” or multiple “car-jackings gone wrong”. However, their success in hiding their own brand of blood stained ethnic cleansing, has been dependant upon the very special set of circumstances relating to South Africa, and, crucially, upon an outside world not wishing to know the truth.
As such the South African model is unlikely to translate as successfully beyond the dark continent’s southern region, and the violent slaughter of a selected ethnic group in any other part of the world, particularly the West, would be less easy to conceal.
However, although there is effectively only one word for genocide, it can come in many forms. To commit genocide, it is not always necessary to perpetrate acts of violence, or indeed murder. There are many definitions of genocide, all equally effective, albeit not all as speedy as the ones chosen in Rwanda.
If one was prepared to take time and if one was sufficiently ideologically committed to embark upon a genocidal enterprise, the conclusion of which one might personally not live to see, then it is entirely possible to achieve the gradual genocide by stealth of a vast target group without the perpetrators ever having to reveal their blood stained hands.
One need only create the conditions in which the target group will cooperate with its own destruction, and, with any luck, not awake to what is happening until too late.
Travel with me now gentle reader and I will explain to you why some believe that the greatest act of genocide in human history is currently being attempted, and how that act may already well on its way to being achieved.
First we need to understand what genocide is. Amongst the United Nations definitions of Acts of Genocide (1) you will find along with the acts of war and violence, the following two definitions which also constitute genocide:
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the targeted group
Deliberately inflicting on the targeted group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
Bearing the points above in mind I invite you to consider where we, the native peoples of Europe have been brought to, in particular over the 65 years since the guns fell silent at the end of a war which our grandfathers were told they were fighting in order to save the future for their children.
Far from saving the future for their children, I would suggest to you that, since World War II, conditions of life have been introduced by those who hold power over us which are calculated to bring about the destruction, at the very least in part, of those very children, the native people of Europe. Meanwhile measures have been introduced intended to significantly reduce the number of Native European births.
Seen in isolation, much of what has happened appears quite harmless, in some instances even beneficial, however, when viewed all together a far darker picture begins to emerge:
A victim will the more willingly drink his poison if its made to taste sweet, and what was sweeter than a sexual revolution without the inconvenience of pregnancy. Forms of contraception have existed with varying degrees of effectiveness for hundreds of years, but never before has it been so easy to avoid getting pregnant. Many will argue that the avoidance of an unwanted pregnancy is beneficial, they will point to the shame and social exclusion of unwed mothers in the past, to prematurely aged women brought to early graves by repeated child bearing, to the financial burden which large families can cause and of course they are correct in some degree, albeit certainly not in the numbers they inevitably claim.
I will not deny that effective, and easily accessible, contraception has benefits for individuals, however, millions of indigenous European children, whom nature intended to be conceived, have not been conceived as a direct result of the contraceptive pill, and the benefits, if any, of that loss to us collectively as European people are less easy to quantify.
As I type this I can already hear the shrill squawks of derision from the trolls and intellectual pygmies at forums such as fstdt.net, who monitor this blog from time to time, and, no doubt, some more grown up readers will raise a sceptical eye-brow at the linkage of oral contraception to genocide. However, I would ask you to put your prejudice to one side and consider these things in context. This is but one aspect of many and, when so many coincidences lead in one direction it is hard to ignore a design.
The contraceptive pill, initially available to married women as a means of family planning, is now celebrated as a weapon of female liberation and heavily promoted within white western nations. It is, of course, also a means of not having children in the numbers which any race needs in order to survive.
Even when the pill fails, it is now, for the first time in history, easy and, in almost every western nation, legal to terminate unwanted pregnancies. As a result of laws passed at the same time that the contraceptive pill was being made widely available, across the West millions upon millions of unborn children have been killed, mainly, to a huge degree, for reasons of convenience rather than medical necessity (including what might be called the “dump the boyfriend, kill the kid” scenario)
Again as with contraception, abortion is portrayed as both a right and a further means of liberating women, in fact it is implied that to be opposed to abortion is to be anti-women. Indeed, popular culture regularly depicts those who are pro-life as being evil or unbalanced, meanwhile, people who are pro-choice/pro-death are portrayed as decent, rational and even rather heroic. As we all know when the media resort to propaganda, they have an agenda.
Is it just coincidence that the two greatest social changes, effecting human reproduction, in the second half of the 20th Century resulted in tens of millions of western children not being born? If so, then here is another coincidence.
There are, of course, other, less obvious ways of preventing births than merely preventing conception or by killing foetuses, you need only create an environment which discourages the target group from reproducing. As a result of successive deliberate economic policies during exactly the same historical period during which the changes described above were taking place, the vast majority of women are now forced to work, rather than stay at home and raise families.
They are, of course, told that being away from home anything up to twelve or more hours a day (and for most of us remote linking or bringing work home at night) is liberating, whereas, in fact, they have no option.
What has changed? It has far less to do with social attitudes than it has with the new economic reality. As recently as the 1960’s the average man’s take home pay was sufficient to support his home and his family, which was, on average, larger than a modern western family. That is no longer possible for anyone under executive level and only then if the husband commutes for hours each day.
This didn’t happen by accident, it didn’t happen due to natural progression, it was the result of deliberate political acts and government policy.
For instance, one of the reasons why men’s wages have not kept pace with the cost of maintaining a home and family is mass immigration, which has been cynically used to depress wages.
A recent study (2) in America estimated that by pushing down wages, immigration triggers a substantial redistribution of income from native-born workers to native-born owners of capital. It was calculated that this redistribution amounts to about 2 percent of GDP, or a whopping $250 billion annually at current levels. And it is the native elites who gain this sum at the expense of native workers, whose wages are kept artificially low.
Read the rest at Sarah’s Albion Blog.