What is “White Genocide” – A Thorough Explanation – This is Europa

What is “White Genocide” – A Thorough Explanation – This is Europa

“White genocide” is a term that is receiving greater attention lately in the media and in online communities, but not everyone fully understands its meaning. We have already, recently written an article that touches upon this subject, but this piece aims to explain this term in more detail in order to provide a better understanding of the phenomenon of White genocide.

But before we go on to define White genocide, let us take a look at the actual definition of genocide and how it came to be.

The term “genocide”, which many of us take for granted today, actually did not exist before 1944. It was coined by a man named Raphael Lemkin. The purpose was to define violent crimes committed against various and specific groups of people within our societies, as there was a growing need to articulate and define Human rights after the events of World War 2, and it became imperative to ensure the rights of individuals and groups alike.

The word “genocide” has been quite effectively established since then, and today most people think they know the definition of “genocide”. Ask a person what it means and they would most likely tell you that it is simply an act of killing a group of people with the purpose of destroying them through violent bloodshed. However, the term is much more complex than that, and this becomes clear if you actually read the definition as presented in the UN international Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crime of Genocide.

What does the UN convention say about genocide?

As stated in article number two in the genocide convention:

Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

When reading the actual article, it becomes evident that there are several definitions encompassed by the term “genocide”. According to Raphael Lemkin, who is responsible for the legal definition of the word used today, it does not matter how you try to eliminate a national, ethnical, racial or religious group of people, or even individuals belonging to such groups, such acts are still regarded as genocide:

Genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation . . . It is intended to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aimed 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 feeling, religion, and the economic institutions and systems of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

Yet most people are only familiar with point (a) Killing members of the group. This is the most common definition and is probably the only one most people are familiar with. But let’s take a look at the other points as well in the context of current global policies.

If we look at Western countries we can indeed see traces of point (b), (d) and not to mention (c). Regarding point (b) – Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group – in Western White countries, the phenomenon of cultural (((Marxism))) has, without a doubt, caused mental harm to our people. For generations, we have been taught that we have a collective guilt as White people, and that we are responsible for most of the world’s problems in one way or another. We are encouraged to feel ashamed of ourselves and of our history and ancestry. We Whites are the only ones that are told that we should be punished for historical acts of slavery or conquest, as if we are exclusively responsible for the past deeds of our ancestors or were exclusively the only peoples on Earth who committed such deeds in the past. Belief systems such as these have left our people brainwashed to be indifferent to our extinction, and today many of our people suffer from an anti-White mentality.

As for point (d), it can be argued that even this point is currently very relevant when considering the norm of free abortion. Today, it is not unusual for Western women to use abortion as a form of birth control. Regardless of what your opinions are on the matter, abortion (as well as other factors) has led to a very low birth rate amongst us Whites. Instead of having more children, we expect immigrants to replace our decreasing population and our diminishing workforce.

In any case, it is the point (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, that is the main aspect of “White genocide”.

If we observe what is happening in the Western world, we can witness that there is in fact a policy of relentless massive Third World immigration into all White countries, and only White countries. These open border policies, combined with forced assimilation and legally forcing White areas to become more “diverse” (meaning less White people and a blended humanity in all and only White countries), is what qualifies current goings-on as (white) genocide as defined by Article II part (c) of the United Nations Genocide Convention, because these deliberate policies are inflicting on our people conditions of life calculated to bring about our physical destruction in whole or in part.

Ok I understand but are these policies really being enforced?

Yes. I asked that very same question myself a few years ago but once I started to look at the world map with this new perspective, it became evident that White Genocide is no mere coincidence. You see these policies being enforced in every Western country with a predominately White population. They call it “diversity” and “multiculturalism”, but in reality, these are just nice sounding ways of saying “open borders” and “less White people” if you think about it.

We don’t see an open border policy in China.

We don’t hear anyone demanding Saudi Arabia to take in any number of refugees, and we don’t hear anyone calling the Japanese nazis for not wanting to be multicultural.

All non-White countries are allowed to be ethnically homogenous.

If Peru or Algeria closed their borders tomorrow, no one would call them “racist”, but we all know what would happen if Germany or the UK did choose to close their borders. We are not allowed to vote on these policies, despite a growing concern amongst European populations. There must be an open border policy into White countries. Anyone who opposes these policies is called a “racist” or a “nazi”. This is all part of the anti-White mindset.

Are similar policies enforced anywhere else that are considered genocidal?

One need only to look East to see very similar policies being put in place in the occupied land of Tibet. The situation in Tibet is that they have a forced open border policy and are subjected to mass Han-Chinese immigration. The ethnic Tibetans are now in fact a minority in their own country. Their culture is undergoing profound changes and the population is forced to assimilate with the foreign migrants. The Tibetans have had no choice in this matter, they are not allowed to vote for or against the policies put in place.

Sound familiar?woman-631266_1920

The consequences of these policies will lead to an even further reduced population of Tibetans, and if nothing changes they will ultimately risk extinction. In other words – genocide.

The Dalai Lama himself has, of course, spoken out against these policies several times, but to no avail. He has even questioned the similar policies we see in Europe, warning about the consequences of massive Third World immigration and the refugee-phenomenon.

Tibet is only one contemporary example of the act of genocide. There are many historical examples which we will not delve into here.

But the question we should all ask ourselves is: if what is happening in Tibet is acknowledged as genocide by international law and by definition, then why do some people deny it when the very same policies are being enforced in predominantly White countries?

Original Article:

An Open Letter to the Race Relations Commissioner of New Zealand – Kerry Bolton

An Open Letter to the Race Relations Commissioner of New Zealand – Kerry Bolton


Dame Susan Devoy
Race Relations Commissioner

23 March 2017

Dear Dame Susan,

I am perplexed by the issues you raise in recently reported statements in the news media in regard to the formation of Western Guard. Similar perplexity was aroused with such statements you made in response to a planned Auckland University European students’ heritage club a few weeks ago, which was aborted due to harassment and threats of violence.

I am not a member of either group, nor have I had any communication with them or know the people involved. I am merely responding to your recent comments as reported in the media; that is:

Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy urged New Zealanders to stand up against the group.

“Aside from the racism issues, it’s just full of hate and vile,” she said.

“There’s no doubt that we are seeing a rise in hate speech, or at least in people telling us about racist attacks. We can’t deny that what is happening around the world is impacting us in New Zealand.

“That’s why people need to take a stand against these things. We are looking at the statutory limitations, we are reviewing the legislation. All of the things around the Bill of Rights Act are very limited and seldom reach the threshold [for prosecution].”

Netsafe director Martin Cocker said the group’s statements did not breach the Harmful Digital Communications Act because they did not threaten harm to any individual.

“In this case you have something which is harmful to groups, and therefore it becomes a matter for other laws such as censorship law.

Dame Susan, you seem to be suggesting an amendment to the Human Rights Act in regard to dealing with alleged “hate speech.” Previous legalisation existed in this regard. If I recall correctly, this was sections 9 and 25 of the Race Relations Act of 1971. They were abrogated as unworkable. Any questions raised concerning ethnic relations and immigration other than those following a liberal agenda were liable to be subjected to a barrage of complaints to the Office. You can presumably imagine the waste of time and resources, since something like “hate speech,” or as it was then termed in the Act, “exciting [sic] racial disharmony,” is often highly subjective. The legislation existed primarily as a vexatious resort by those who had a political axe to grind. Hence, the Race Relations Office was manipulated by those with an agenda. Now, it seems to me that this is the regime to which you wish to return (?).

Having been prompted by curiosity to look at the Websites of Western Guard and the previously aborted European students’ club, it seems to me that your comments describing the WG site, and basically the same terminology used to defame the students’ club, are subjective and not appropriate for a tax-funded public servant. You claim that the message of WG is “full of hatred and vile”; ipso facto, does this imply that such references as “white lives matter” are regarded as hateful and vile? Does the same criteria apply to “black lives matter,” for example? The implication is, as suggested by WG, that there are indeed those in positions of influence throughout the Western world who really do believe that “white lives” do not matter, and that you would be one such person.

Should the nebulous concept of “hate speech” be reintroduced into New Zealand legislation, this will indicate the intellectual and ideological bankruptcy of the multicultural proposition, which will have been shown as incapable of sustaining debate. As it is, and has long been, there is already no real debate. The reflexive reactions of those such as yourself and the Auckland University students’ association and sundry journalists, indicate this.

However, legislation on the loaded term “hate speech” will serve to provide state sanction to the bigotry that already exists in regard to any opinion deemed pro-European or in some way critical of multiculturalism. An objective assessment of such issues requires a wide range of historical knowledge which neither you nor anyone else that has condemned WG and the prior European students’ club, seemingly possess. Your answer is to outlaw such opinions, while the response of those who share your opinions on WG seems to comprise, based on the Facebook postings, with expletive-ridden abuse and threats.

When the state legislates to outlaw matters of opinion peacefully expressed, then it is elevating a policy into a dogma, and opposition becomes a heresy. That this has long been so in regard to issues such as multiculturalism is evident. However, your suggestions in regard to changes in the law make it blatantly so, and surely confirm the contentions of groups such as WG. In regard to questions of violence and abuse, there are of course other laws that deal with such matters. If someone regards slogans such as “white lives matter” as intrinsically offensive, then that surely indicates a certain anti-European bigotry on the part of the supposedly offended party. It could be argued that being offended by a slogan as “white lives matter” is itself offensive, and indicative of race-hate.

The reactions of yourself and others in condemning such small responses to big problems as “hateful” and so on seem to be of the character of “projection,” psychologically speaking.  The targets of your wrath do not seem to have displayed anything other than relatively mildly worded opinions in favour of European heritage. Presumably you and your “type,” as it can be called, would not be satisfied with anything less than to be able to stifle anything expressing a pro-European attitude. If correct, this begs the question as to whether such groups as WG are correct in their perception that there really is an agenda among people of influence to obliterate any conception of European identity, while lauding and applauding the sundry identities of every other ethnicity; in short: hypocrisy and Europhobia.

Again, to refer to psychology, when something is repressed, it simmers and eventually boils over into extreme and destructive forms that might otherwise have been sublimated into something positive. Carl Jung made this point and gave this warning, when addressing the reasons for the rise of Hitler as a manifestation of centuries of repression of the German collective unconscious.

Yours faithfully,

K. R. Bolton

Original article:

What Western Guard Stands For

What Western Guard Stands For

A Nation For Our People – A New Zealand ruled by our people, for our people. A multicultural nation is no nation at all, but a collection of smaller ethnic nations ruled over by an increasingly overbearing State. Western Guard accepts and promotes the truth that it was White European peoples who – from a faraway continent – discovered and civilized these beautiful islands, building roads, schools, and hospitals, creating a better quality of life for ourselves and Maori alike. Demographics are our destiny, and in the near future this nation will no longer be predominantly White. Ask yourself, do you want to live in a country where white people are the minority? Do you want to live in South Africa or Zimbabwe?

Western Guard stands indomitably opposed to the tyranny of globalism, a system under which nations are stripped of their heritage and people are turned into nothing more than units of cheap, expendable labour. Western Guard, and like-minded nationalist organizations across the entire Western world see a coalition of nations ruled by their own people, for their own people.

A Nation of Values – In an undeniably increasingly materialistic world, it is vital now more than ever that we create a society based on preserving and upholding the natural order that binds us. A strong social order based on natural truths is necessary for the health of any society. Human nature should be the foundation of all civilizations, and the starting point for all ideologies, not something to be rejected in pursuit of unnatural aims which contradict it. The ideal structure of a nuclear family in which a hard-working father and a nurturing mother instill strong values in the children of our nation is paramount, and must be the building block which lays the foundation for any nation. As such, any assault on the nuclear family must be met with swift and decisive action. We accept and promote the truth that equality is non-existent in nature, and the policies of government must not cater to the false god of equality.

An Nation of Independence – A New Zealand based upon the values of self-reliance and fellowship must be fostered which stands entirely apart from the dictatorship of international finance. Like all independent nations, New Zealand should strive for a truly nationalistic economy which is free from the influence of international corporations who are led by a shadowy cabal of bankers, globalists, and executives who place profit beyond the interests of our people, or any people. New Zealand should protect a man’s right to fulfilling work, so that every hardworking man can provide for his wife and children. The chains of debt slavery and usury wrap themselves tightly around our people, and such conditions must be reversed so our nation and its citizens can achieve true freedom. Our currency should no longer be manipulated on the whims of a powerful few, our jobs and industry should no longer be exported to foreign countries, and the media and entertainment industries must no longer be allowed to poison and brainwash the minds of our people.

Special thanks to our brothers in the USA – Vanguard America – whose knowledge and actions were a guiding force for the creation of our organization and this declaration of intent.