Interracial Marriage Causing African-American Genocide

From over at Truth Over Tradition, a stunning analysis of how interracial marriage is causing a de facto genocide of the African-American ethnic group in the United States:

According to all the latest marriage statistics here in the U.S., there are more black people marrying out-side of their race than ever before. Research shows that there are well over 500,000 interracial marriages between black and whites today. Research also shows that about 3 in every 10 new black marriages are with someone outside of their race, with most of them being white. And out of all of the interracial marriages today, it is discovered that black men marry outside of their race almost three times as much as black women do.

The increasing numbers of interracial marriages among our people today is a clear sign that the black family in America is slowly dying out and on record to become extinct. Today, Black America is only 13% of the U.S. population. And when you take into account that the majority of our brothers are locked up in prison, dead, or gay; then you can easily see how our men choosing to marry our oppressor’s women instead of our own women, can completely blot out the black race. But this is NOT a coincidence; this is America’s plan to white us out of existence. It’s called Blanqueamiento [which] is the racial whitening of a dark population of people by mating with them to dissolve their race.

Genocide can take many forms. Any deliberate activity to displace or remove an ethnic group is a form of genocide, even if done through “soft” methods like economic or cultural pressure, or through decentralized methods like people independently obeying ideology instead of a centralized command or law. As time goes on, it becomes clear that diversity will bring genocide to all groups under its control.

What Is A Minority?

We hear the term minority group relatively frequently, but it is rarely defined. The United Nations offers the definition of a minority group under international law:

According to a definition offered in 1977 by Francesco Capotorti, Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, a minority is: A group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a State, in a non-dominant position, whose members – being nationals of the State – possess ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population and show, if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity, directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language.

As implied by the term “minority,” the fundamental idea is of a distinct group that is numerically inferior, but the broader question is, why limit this to a particular state, especially since “globalism” seems to be the trend of the moment? A minority is any distinct group that is not the majority worldwide, in this new definition, which expands our focus to cover any potentially endangered population.

Another question is power. If an ideology holds sway in a nation, even a numerically dominant group can be threatened because it has inferior numerical support for its position, even if it does not realize that it is at risk. Any group on the wrong end of power could be a minority here, such as the numerical majority in Syria who are not Alawite.

This definition of minority makes sense in a historical context, but by applying its spirit to the changed circumstances under which we find ourselves, we see how the term “minority” has both lost and gained meaning.

Ongoing Sikh Genocide In India

In the Northern Indian state of Punjab and its environs, an ethnic population known as Sikhs are attempting to survive despite government attempts to integrate them into a secular, materialistic and bureaucratic state.

Most of the Sikhs belong to the ethnic group of the Jatts, who are by lore a mix of Scythian and Northern Indian, something borne out by the number of infants born there with hazel eyes and light skin. Local histories hold that some Jatt tribes migrated from Europe and some came with Alexander the Great, such as the Gill and Mann tribes.

Sikhs have endured the attempts at their conquest by numerous empires. The Moghuls wanted to convert them to Islam, which caused the Sikhs to take an appropriately militarized and somewhat xenophobic attitude toward nearby tribes. Currently, the Indian government wants to mainstream Sikhs into what Indian “culture” has become, which is more globalist than localist.

Conflict continues to the present day between Sikhs and those who support integration into broader India:

At least eleven people were injured as dozens of Sikh radicals clashed with supporters of the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandak Committee (SGPC) at the revered Golden Temple, in Amritsar, Punjab.

It is understood the scuffle erupted over who would speak first at the service, held to remember victims of military offensive Operation Blue Star that left hundreds dead on June 6, 1984, when soldiers stormed the compound in a bid to flush out separatist insurgents holed up in the temple.

As globalism winds down with the failure of the modern subsidy state, localist communities and cultures are resisting it, leading to these types of clashes in which anti-integration and pro-integration forces fight for control of the institutions that regulate the local community, either aiding its independence or threatening to obliterate it through uniformity.

Signs Of The Decline: Lack of Trust in the Professions

clinton_kaine

Civilizations collapse when they experience a loss of social order; this leads to the civilization being conquered by invaders and its population destroyed through a type of genocide by outbreeding. When trust in institutions, people and government to be free of corruption and competent declines, this process is advancing.

Gallup reports a massive decline in faith in the professions, which reveals both a lack of trust and a sense that corruption now dominates our institutions.

ethical_standards_of_professions

As the reader can see from this chart excerpted from the above article, trust is declining toward professions like law, government, political pundits, media and finance. For example, only one in five people profess a high degree of trust in lawyers, who are the people who often make our laws and decide our future with court cases.

If you were wondering what the fall of Rome was like, this is one of the advance signs of an “internal collapse” in that style. Long before the Vandals arrived, conquered and subjugating the people — leading to their genocide and replacement with modern Italians — Rome also experienced corruption and incompetence that lowered trust in this way.

How Positive Government Destroys Native Traditions

dog_with_clay_pipe

Over at Choctaw Nation, a great analysis of Amerind tobacco use:

Many Choctaw men also had their own personal pipes. Most of these were smaller and less elaborate than the council pipes, calumets, or war pipes. At least some of them had short stems of hollow river cane. These personal pipes were smoked in individual prayer or reflection. They were also smoked at times when supernatural aid was sought. When Choctaw men met each other out away from home, if one had a pipe and tobacco, it was customary for him to sit down and share it with the other travelers.

Choctaw men smoked in the same way humans have always smoked pipes: for contemplation, during prayer, or when seeking relaxation. Tobacco is part of their community, their way of life, and their cultural values system. And yet, the Nanny State of Big Government (NSOBG) has determined it will impede their access to pipe tobacco:

This means that the FDA is tossing pipe tobacco and cigars in with cigarettes. There is no effort to refine the law or regulation to show that the Surgeon General’s latest report says that smoking either a pipe or a cigar has relatively the same health risks as those who do not smoke.

So, “deeming” is skewed right from the start by FDA, citing its mandates from Congress, which, by the way, loves its cigars, too.

Cigars, along with pipe tobacco, recently became a “deemed” product by the FDA, which claims to be carrying out the mandates of the 2009 Tobacco Control Act, better known as the Family Tobacco Protection Act, which gave the FDA jurisdiction over tobacco products.

Rack up another one for the Antis.

Any tobacco blend which did not exist in 2007, or has been deemed to have changed since then, has to go through an approval process. On the surface this sounds benign, as if helpful bureaucrats were looking out for our welfare. In reality, it is a measure designed to choke the industry:

In theory, this review process ensures that any new products introduced to market are no more dangerous than what is already for sale. In practice, it halts the introduction of new products, trapping applications in interminable bureaucratic limbo. The history of FDA cigarette regulation shows that cigar smokers are right to be concerned.

A 2012 investigation by the Associated Press found that the FDA had received nearly 3,500 of these “substantial equivalence” applications since the law took effect in 2009. The agency was expected to rule on these applications within ninety days of receipt. At the end of 2012 it had issued zero rulings, with many applications lingering for years.

Are there exceptions for the Choctaw? No, because this law covers tobacco manufacturers who want to sell their product in the USA. This means that every manufacturer will either comply with the law and its estimated costs of $300,000 per blend to get pipe blends approved, or cease making them, except for blends pre-existing since 2007 which have not changed in the FDA’s eyes; the FDA has not published definitive information on how it makes this determination.

Who supports this legislation? Cigarette makers:

According to NCPPR’s risk analysis director, Jeff Stier, the regulation could require all electronic cigarettes that came to market after February 15, 2007, which is essentially all of them, to be removed from the market unless they win onerous pre-market approval.

“This,” Stier said, “would give deadly old-school combustible cigarettes an almost insurmountable competitive advantage.” “The regulation would have the effect, intended or not, of taking e-cigarettes away from former smokers who quit smoking by using these less harmful alternatives.

Under the guise of “protecting families,” this new deeming rule is actually designed to eliminate competition for the existing and approved tobacco blends in cigarettes. This causes people to avoid the safer methods of tobacco consumption like pipes and cigars, and turn instead to mass-produced, additive-laden cigarettes.

Keep in mind that the FDA makes no promises about taking action to approve any product, leaving smaller manufacturers facing bankruptcy while they wait for regulatory approval:

The only incentive for FDA to act on such submissions within a year is apparently to meet its own, as yet unspecified, “performance goals.”

What this means for the Choctaw is that their tribal tradition has been regulated out of existence by the FDA, resulting in higher costs, lower availability, and more delays. A ten thousand year tradition has been obliterated by the act of government, which believes it is acting in the interests of the “general welfare” of its population.

“Progress Can Kill”

progress_can_kill

Survival International has released a new short report, “Progress Can Kill,” which describes how well-intentioned attempts to bring modern society to isolated tribes can in fact destroy those tribes through obesity, suicide, AIDS, starvation, addiction and loss of life expectancy.

As the authors summarize:

If they are to survive, indigenous people must control the changes they want to make to their own lives. The key to tribal peoples’ futures is to ensure their land remains under their control.

In an echo of Nationalist movements of the last century, Survival International emphasizes control over land, including the ability to exclude outsiders, and self-determination or control of destiny as essential to the survival of these tribes. The report illustrates how modern lifestyles destroy these tribes by altering their lifestyle to one that is alien to their needs, all under the guise of “progress” that enables their lands to be exploited for economic gains.

Eradication of Indigenous Cultures By Globalism Is Slow Genocide

indigenous_cultures_preservation_and_protection

We are accustomed to thinking of genocide as what happens when men in snappy uniforms lock up certain races in concentration camps and work them to death. But what if a company bought up an entire country, then introduced new cultural practices that replaced the people there, and imported foreign workers to mix genetically with the population, so that in two generations the original population no longer existed?

Sadly, this condition is the norm around most of the world, only it is not a single corporation or dictator doing it, but the force of globalism itself. International commerce buys up the land, hires the people, changes local government, and imports its own labor force which genetically replaces the original population. Soon the values, culture, folkways and tribe itself have vanished, replaced by generic modern people.

Native Planet gives us a good synopsis of why this type of genocide is so prevalent:

The future of our planet depends on saving both the remaining biologically diverse ecosystems and the cultural, credible diversity of the tribal peoples of the world. The ancient cultures of native peoples, threatened by modern assimilation, are the only known, proven time-tested models for the sustainable consumption of the Earth’s threatened natural resources.

The new ways replace the old. The more convenient modern methods sweep in and drive out the old ways. Soon they are forgotten and, when the genetic stock that created them is gone, they will never be rediscovered. Cultural Survival writes about the destructive effects of this process:

What are the rights that indigenous peoples seek?

First, they want to be recognized for who they are: distinct groups with their own unique cultures. Indigenous peoples want to enjoy and pass on to their children their histories, languages, traditions, modes of internal governance, spiritual practices, and all else that makes them who they are. They want to be able to pray on their ancestral lands without finding that those lands have been dug up to construct a gold mine, fenced off to create a safari park, or watered with sewage effluent pumped from a nearby city.

Second, they want the governments of the countries in which they live to respect their ability to determine for themselves their own destinies. For indigenous peoples, “self-determination” has a different meaning than it did for colonial-dominated nations in the mid-20th century. Self-determination relates to autonomy, not the right to secede from the state. It means the right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development inside the country in which they live. They want to govern themselves in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, and to retain their distinct political, legal, economic, social, and cultural institutions. They want to educate their children in their own languages, and about their own traditions; to worship in their own ways; to establish media in their languages; to retain their traditional modes of resolving internal disputes; and to fully participate in any outside decision-making that could have an impact on their lives. At the same time, recognizing their interdependence with the country in which they live, they want to be able to participate in the political and economic life of that country, if they so choose.

Third, indigenous peoples want to enjoy the same rights as all other people without discrimination of any kind. They want to be regarded by everyone as full and equal human beings. They want to be protected from genocide, arbitrary execution, torture, forced relocation, or assimilation, and they want to enjoy their rights to freedom of expression, association, and religion. They want to be treated equally with respect to opportunities for education, health care, work, and other basic needs.

The United Nations codified a recognition of the need for indigenous peoples to be free from assimilation, including by globalism, with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples issued in 2007. It reads in part:

Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such,

Affirming also that all peoples contribute to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common heritage of humankind,

Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust,

Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources,

What makes the globalist genocide difficult to recognize is that it occurs through a type of inverse racial superiority: in their desire to be diverse, globalist entities create a mixed-heritage group which assimilates and replaces the indigenous group. This is genocide through genetic discrimination in favor of the mixed-heritage by global industry and governments.

The Commission on Legal Pluralism issued a study which revealed that genetic assimilation of indigenous peoples occurs through the expansion of global industry, which by its lack of inherent culture is biased against indigenous culture and the genetics of those people, replacing both permanently altering their local ecosystem:

Industrial civilization destroys natural environment and, hence, the basis for traditional resource use, by destroying the mechanism that supports the peoples’ ethnic identity and by stimulating total assimilation of the nations into a demographically uniform conglomeration.

As part of this industrial expansion, the use of diversity to undermine social trust enables the destruction of local culture and encourages its replacement with universal modern anti-culture. As Robert Putnam observed with a statistical study, introduction of ethnic diversity destroys the sense of commonality and shared values required for culture:

New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.

The same procedure is enacted with plant biology: new crops are imported, which breaks up the functioning of the local ecosystem in a process which is akin to a loss of social trust, and then this new universal crop makes the native biology irrelevant along with the cultural methods of using it. As the Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism writes:

As indigenous people have taken a more critical look at genetics, many have voiced their concern and have started to speak out against some of the negative aspects of biotechnology. In fact, a widespread movement against genetic theft, or biopiracy, has started to build around the world. Many of the protesters at the World Trade Organization meeting in late 1999 in Seattle were opposed to the negative impacts biotechnology can have when the interests of corporations are favored over societal needs. Those opposed to the control corporations have over science and genetic resources include a broad range of people, from indigenous peoples to shareholder activists, from students to tenured professors.

This biological assimilation replaces the native ecosystem and population, destroying the indigenous group and its culture in the same motion that genetically obliterates both its traditional food sources and the ethnic group itself. In this way, the group is destroyed just as thoroughly as if its people were executed en masse. It just takes longer and happens through indirect methods instead of tyrannical power.

The United Nations defines genocide as:

Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The authors of this statement included the language “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” in order to cover all methods of genocide, and by using the “in part” language, they indicated that incremental genocide of the type described in this article was covered as well.

Biocolonialism, or replacing indigenous ecosystems and peoples with plants, animals and people from afar, qualifies under the UN definition of genocide. As more interest occurs in the protection of indigenous peoples against assimilation and displacement, the globalist method of biological replacement will become seen as the genocide that it is.

Diversity = Racism

diversity_is_racism

The slogans “diversity is racism” and “multiculturalism is genocide” emphasize the truth of these programs, which are sold to you as a rainbow nation of people of different origins holding hands and singing “Kumbaya.” In reality, diversity and multiculturalism are designed to replace a majority ethnic population with a mixed-race one.

Racism

Racism is discrimination against those of another race.

Racism, n. (2) a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.1

Multiculturalism is racism against the majority. When leaders who want totalitarian control see a majority population, they realize they have a problem. Majorities have cultures, values, folkways and belief systems. The tyrannical leader needs people who will follow a carrot (ideology) from fear of a stick (political ostracism), and majorities do not do this enough. Therefore, they need to be replaced. The solution is to bring in people from all over the world, then punish those who do not interact, socialize, and conduct commerce with these, forcing the mixing of the groups.

Genocide

Genocide is removal of a race.

Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”2

Diversity (also called internationalism, multiculturalism and ethno-pluralism) starts with the happy row of ethnic restaurants and neighbors of different national backgrounds. It ends with those cultures each destroyed as they are assimilated into majority culture, which in turn assimilates majority culture to a new mixed-race group, which then replaces the majority. If you did it with machine guns, people would recognize it as genocide. It is simpler a slower less visible method.