Is there an answer?

I see the vandal mobs have pulled down the George Washington statue in Portland, Oregon. We all knew they would eventually come after all the great men and all the symbols of historical (true) America. Washington would not be spared just because he had no connection to the Confederacy. He was a Southron as well, a fact which is often forgotten, because he was the first President of the United States.

The phrase ‘Genocidal Colonist’ was spray-painted on the statue.

If we didn’t already know how deeply and hopelessly ignorant these destroying thugs are, this phrase ‘genocidal colonists’ shows it. I may be alone in this opinion, I usually am, but when and how did the word ‘genocide’ become so wrongly used?

The word ‘genocide’ derives from the words ‘genos’, meaning race or kindred group, plus the suffix ‘-cide‘, meaning killing or extinction.

The fact that some Amerindians were killed by European colonists — usually in self-defense — does not constitute “genocide” which usually implies root-and-branch destruction of a people or race.

And incidentally, how many Europeans were killed by Amerindians? We probably don’t know the exact count. But many were killed, and how do we not know that a ”genocide” was not intended against them? And they were often killed with a ferocity that was not equaled by the European colonists, who rarely practiced torture as did the Amerindian tribes. Even the so-called ‘Civilized Tribes’ did so; their title as ‘civilized’ referred to their political system, which they claim influenced the Founding Fathers’ model for our system.

The Christian settlers and colonists tried to coexist and form alliances or friendly trading relationships. The English had their families here; they preferred to try to get along. To accuse them of wanting to wipe out peoples wholesale is just wrong. It’s a libel against our folk.

History notwithstanding (and few seem to care about history today) it is just incorrect for us to use the word ‘genocide’ except in cases where a whole people are wiped out intentionally.

Genocide does not mean people are being treated badly or unfairly (as European-descended people are); our foes have made it clear that we should be eliminated. Numerous statements by many ‘white’ leaders as well as Others have made that clear. We are always being accused of being paranoid ”conspiracy theorists” — as if history is not rife with conspiracies and various plots. Do the globalist media masters think that they have dumbed us down to such a low level that we think conspiracies never happen, even in a world full of duplicitous people looking to obtain power and control?

We are undoubtedly in distress and under siege. That is not a figment of anyone’s imagination.

The mob shouting that they are victims of ‘genocide’ is absurd. The suffix of the word (-cide) indicates death and demise; in this case, elimination. It’s a gross exaggeration of the situation. If there were a real ‘genocide’, that is, a wiping-out of a people, would they be here to protest their own demise? The fact is the population of A-As is not declining but slowly growing. That would not be the case if there were a ‘genocide’.

Amerindian tribes experienced a 26.7% population growth between the years 2000 and 2010 — a faster population growth than the country as a whole. Not a genocide to be found there.

Language is important. Words matter.

I remember some years ago a pro-White writer raised a mild objection to this misuse of the word ‘genocide’, remarking on how many pro-White people were using it to describe our situation, wherein we’re diminishing, by design. Soon, as the media keep reminding us, we will be a minority. Or ‘The’ minority, and the rest will be celebrating that.

Personally I think it’s not only an incorrect usage to claim ‘genocide’ — if memory serves it was the UN who loosened up the usage of the word in order to make it sound more dire, or to ramp up the accusations against European-descended peoples. By accusing us of perpetrating this, we are made into the arch-villains of the world. The weak-minded believe it.

There is little chance of the corrupt anti-White alliance called the UN taking up our cause and defending us. We are of use only as a source of funding; otherwise we are the bad guys there.

It’s about time we avoid such a strong word as ‘genocide’ inaccurately. It has no beneficial effect to using it as our foes and enemies (mis)use it.

Most of all we should ignore their hysterical over-the-top rhetoric, especially when they misuse English words. English is our language; we should use the ‘tongue that Shakespeare spake’ with precision and not accede to the misuse and abuse of that language. We know they are using loaded and shocking terms for effect: to silence us or to gain sympathy from the weak simpletons out there who sympathize with wrongdoers.

People crying about being ‘genocided’ when they are very much alive, and are dominating the discourse, should provoke only incredulity, not sympathy.

The importance of word choice

I was just about to write a piece on the usage and misuse of the word ‘genocide‘, when I came across Thomas Dalton’s very helpful piece on that very subject, on TOO.

Dalton, in a very apropos essay, addresses how the word is very vaguely and broadly defined, and he delineates the origins of the word, as well as the current definitions as laid down by the likes of the U.N.

I recommend the Dalton piece, but I will add my own thoughts as to the questionable utility of a word whose meaning is so elastic that it can include both ‘lethal’ and ‘non-lethal’ meanings and outcomes. For example, any attempt or ‘conspiracy’ to eliminate, or even damage or harm another group is ‘genocide’, per the existing and widely accepted definitions.

However, consult a dicitionary and you will see that the suffix “-cide” as in ‘suicide‘ or ‘homicide’, etc., describe killer, or act of killing. Hence words like ‘regicide’, ‘pesticide’, parricide, and on and on. So it seems we are wresting the meaning by applying it to other situations in which there is no death implied.

There is no half-measure with death; no-one can be sort of killed or somewhat dead. It’s one or the other.

I’ve asked rhetorically in the past: how can there have been ‘genocide’ against American Indians when there are still many living Amerindians, across North, South, and Central America? The rabid left, of course, will say that there were tens of millions of American Indians and that they were ‘all but wiped out’, and would otherwise have represented hundreds of millions. That, however, is just conjecture or plain sophistry. There was never any official census to count the number of Amerindians during the time of the early colonies. How could there have been? And it’s fact that the tribes, being mostly hunter-gatherers, could not have been sustained by that lifestyle had they numbered in hundreds of millions; hunter-gatherers require lots of land and open space to pursue their hunting-gathering way of life.

Amerindians often succumbed to diseases for which Europeans had developed some degree of immunity. This was not intentional ‘genocide’ by Whites, and what about the current situation in which many new arrivals are carrying diseases which are new to North America, and for which we may have no immunity? It’s a fact, but does the left accuse anyone of intentional harm there? Not likely.

In short, it’s fallacious and dishonest to say that ‘genocide’ took place on this continent in the past. And yet, a lot of careless thinkers on the ‘right’ agree with the charges that our ancestors ‘genocided’ Amerindians. But the tribes are still alive and holding their own, so the charge is without validity. Why can’t people grasp that?

To address the question of whether it’s useful or wise, as Dalton questions, to apply the term ‘genocide’ to the replacement of our folk here or in Europe, I would argue, also, for a careful and correct use of language. For many people the word ‘genocide’ seems hyperbolic and hysterical in the current context. I’ve certainly used the term ‘existential threat’ to describe our situation, and I think that’s accurate, but in my opinion it’s about as useful to use the term ‘genocide’ at this point as it is to call the left ‘the real racists’ (the old DR3), in other words, not useful at all. It just rolls of the backs of the targets.

In any case, even if one supposes there’s some utility in throwing these words around in hopes of scoring a bullseye somewhere, there’s this question: considering the history of the word ‘genocide’, its origins and its current definitions (as defined by the United Nations et al), do we really wish to adopt their definitions and their ways of thinking? Since when?

The right can and should do better than to adopt slippery and sophistical rhetoric just because our foes do that so freely.

And far too many on the right, not just the ‘respectable cons’ or cuckservatives have fallen prey to the endless guilt that the left tends to heap on our folk. There is too much ready adoption of undeserved guilt feelings, and the groveling desire to point the finger elsewhere and try to deflect the blame. If we stand on the truth — not easy in this Age of the Lie, we will be much stronger.