The Genocide Question

[fireofice]

The issue of what exactly counts as "genocide" is an issue that pertains to what happened to the Jews during WW2. Germar Rudolf in his recent debate as well as in the encyclopedia concedes that what happened to the Jews during this period counts as genocide even on the revisionist view.

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/conce ... cide/4354/

But then at the same time, you could also say that the allied bombing campaign against Germans was genocidal. Mike Peinovich goes over a lengthy list of examples in his debate with Matthew Cockerill.

https://therightstuff.biz/2023/06/17/holocaust-debate/

He says he got many of his examples from Masters of the Air by Donald Miller.

Mentioned by Peinovich is a letter written by Churchill where he says: "But there is one thing that will bring him back and bring him down, and that is an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland."
https://winstonchurchill.org/publicatio ... ng-policy/

Here he uses the word "extermination". Genocide proved, right?

But what makes the Nazis special is that they supposedly did something that goes above and beyond this. So this is just merely an argument that you are going to have to do more than finding Nazi leaders saying harsh things that sound genocidal since statements like that can be found on both sides. It's also interesting, as Mike points out, that the volume of evidence he provides for mass killings from bombs by the Allies is way more than what we have for Auschwitz and the various "extermination camps".

I also came across these interesting videos:





Here the history of genocide as a concept is gone over and the problems with it. The most interesting is the second video, which goes over the Bosnian genocide or the lack thereof as ruled by the courts. Various tribunals apparently only labeled Srebrenica a genocide, but the rest were considered mere massacres with no genocidal intent. This kind of shows that "genocide" is not an objective term, but used for political purposes. By the same standard, I'm sure I could say that everything the Nazis did to the Jews wasn't "genocide" because I don't interpret their motivations to be actually genocidal. It's all word games.

[TlsMS93]

The definition of genocide depends largely on the intent to destroy in part or in whole a given national, ethnic, religious group, etc.

The Allied strategic bombing campaign over Germany was clearly aimed in part at civilian targets, often to the detriment of military objectives, that is, there was a genocidal intent, perhaps only by the Allied air force but not by the government itself, but even this cannot be ruled out by figures like Churchill, who was in favor of even dousing Germany with poison gas.

As for considering the Holocaust a genocide, even if the central aspects of the Holocaust, such as the gas chambers and mass shootings, are refuted or minimized over time, I do not think it will change the perception that Nazism will somehow be seen in a different light. Decades of mass media crystallizing this perception will keep people stuck in these prejudices even if they are unaware of the many concessions that have already been made to revisionism.

Why don't communist regimes produce the same effect? I think this is largely due to the fact that, at first glance, its proposal is welcoming to all peoples, while Nazism is directed only at Germans, and this despite tons of atrocities that are much greater and longer-lasting than Nazism, because the argument that they were a necessary evil that defeated Nazism arises.

Racism as the root of the issue of genocide ensures that even if these aspects of the Holocaust are refuted, it will continue to be ingrained in the way it is today, while religious crusades such as Islam fighting Christianity and this also being considered genocide do not cause the same repulsion as Nazism.

There are many events that clearly had genocidal intentions, but international institutions clearly reflect the post-1945 situation, so it depends on the customer's face.

[Hektor]

The definition of genocide depends largely on the intent to destroy in part or in whole a given national, ethnic, religious group, etc.

The Allied strategic bombing campaign over Germany was clearly aimed in part at civilian targets, often to the detriment of military objectives, that is, there was a genocidal intent, perhaps only by the Allied air force but not by the government itself, but even this cannot be ruled out by figures like Churchill, who was in favor of even dousing Germany with poison gas.

As for considering the Holocaust a genocide, even if the central aspects of the Holocaust, such as the gas chambers and mass shootings, are refuted or minimized over time, I do not think it will change the perception that Nazism will somehow be seen in a different light. Decades of mass media crystallizing this perception will keep people stuck in these prejudices even if they are unaware of the many concessions that have already been made to revisionism.
...

The key issue is indeed intent. The number of people that died is secondary to that and could be a secondary charge now....The problem is whom you gonna charge. Direct perpetrators can mostly not convincingly be identified. And then there is the issue that testimony is often motivated by other urges than 'love for the truth'....

[TlsMS93]

The definition of genocide depends largely on the intent to destroy in part or in whole a given national, ethnic, religious group, etc.

The Allied strategic bombing campaign over Germany was clearly aimed in part at civilian targets, often to the detriment of military objectives, that is, there was a genocidal intent, perhaps only by the Allied air force but not by the government itself, but even this cannot be ruled out by figures like Churchill, who was in favor of even dousing Germany with poison gas.

As for considering the Holocaust a genocide, even if the central aspects of the Holocaust, such as the gas chambers and mass shootings, are refuted or minimized over time, I do not think it will change the perception that Nazism will somehow be seen in a different light. Decades of mass media crystallizing this perception will keep people stuck in these prejudices even if they are unaware of the many concessions that have already been made to revisionism.
...

The key issue is indeed intent. The number of people that died is secondary to that and could be a secondary charge now....The problem is whom you gonna charge. Direct perpetrators can mostly not convincingly be identified. And then there is the issue that testimony is often motivated by other urges than 'love for the truth'....

Let's assume that the Nazis really did what they did. One could argue that they were killing the disabled to save food and medical resources to target those who contributed to the war effort, just like Aktion T4, since many Jews were spared. When you want to exterminate someone, no one can be spared. No one considers T4 to be a genocide against the disabled because it is not a specific group like nationality, race or religion. Now, was this only directed at Jews? What about the Gypsies, Slavs? Do inflammatory statements prove intentionality? If so, then the Israeli government fits this profile in relation to the Palestinians.

Now, the case against gassings is abundant, against shootings not so much, but a counter-narrative can be established for the war on the Eastern Front.

[Wahrheitssucher]

.
Q1. Is there a plan and programme to eliminate ‘white’ races and create ‘multi-culturalisation’ through a surreptitious programme of genocide?

Q2. Is this plan and programme created, operated and promoted by jooish collectives?

The following excerpt from a TV panel-discussion in the UK appears to be further evidence supporting the view that the correct answers are YES and YES.

This would perhaps explain why re-evaluations of AH, the NDSAP and WW2 are increasingly prevalent on social-media. I.e. it seems more people are becoming aware of what is occurring regarding ‘migration’, miscegenation and multi-culturalisation programmes, PLUS who is behind that,… AND what AH wrote and said about those EXACT-SAME issues back in the 1920s and 30s.

[Eye of Zyclone]

The issue of what exactly counts as "genocide" is an issue that pertains to what happened to the Jews during WW2. Germar Rudolf in his recent debate as well as in the encyclopedia concedes that what happened to the Jews during this period counts as genocide even on the revisionist view.

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/conce ... cide/4354/

The term “genocide” was legally defined only in 1948, when the United Nations adopted its genocide convention (see https://www.un.org/en/genocide-preventi ... convention). According to this convention, genocide does not require the mass murder of members of a defined group because they belong to that group. Already any measure that causes serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately creates conditions leading to death, or prevents the ability of a defined group to procreate is seen as genocide, if these acts are committed with the intention to target a specific group of people.

Between early 1942 and late 1944, it was National-Socialist policy to deport Jews – because they were Jews – from many European countries to camps, where the genders had to live and work separated from each other. Hence, these Jews were deliberately put in a position where they could not procreate. Furthermore, Jews in German-created and controlled camps and ghettos were subjected to conditions that inevitably had to lead to serious bodily and mental harm, and to the death of many, just because they were Jews.

Therefore, if we use the 1948 UN definition of genocide, those responsible for defining and implementing this National-Socialist policy did indeed commit genocide against the Jews, even if there were no mass executions by gas vans, gas chambers or shootings. While it is true that those legally responsible for these acts could not have been prosecuted under this 1948 convention, they are still burdened with moral responsibility.

That's BS. Genocide is not the intent to target a people. Genocide is the intent to destroy a people. Therefore, since the Nazis didn't intend to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth, they didn't commit genocide against the Jews. The Nazis intended to wipe the Jews off the continent of Europe by forcibly transferring them elsewhere after the war. This was the Nazi final solution to the Jewish problem in Europe. No matter the amount of bodily and mental harm and the number of deaths caused by the first stages of that process during WW2, it was not, strictly speaking, a genocide because the goal (the intent) was not the destruction of the Jewish people. The goal was the removal of an unwanted people within a given area, not the destruction of that people.

[Eye of Zyclone]

.
Q1. Is there a plan and programme to eliminate ‘white’ races and create ‘multi-culturalisation’ through a surreptitious programme of genocide?

Q2. Is this plan and programme created, operated and promoted by jooish collectives?

The following excerpt from a TV panel-discussion in the UK appears to be further evidence supporting the view that the correct answers are YES and YES.

This would perhaps explain why re-evaluations of AH, the NDSAP and WW2 are increasingly prevalent on social-media. I.e. it seems more people are becoming aware of what is occurring regarding ‘migration’, miscegenation and multi-culturalisation programmes, PLUS who is behind that,… AND what AH wrote and said about those EXACT-SAME issues back in the 1920s and 30s.

And don't forget "Feminism," that is, an artificially-undermined birth rate in White countries, and who is behind that too. Intentionally undermining another people's birthrate looks very much like Theodore Kaufman's genocidal plan for the postwar annihilation of the German people (1941 book Germany Must Perish), but by anti-natalist social engineering instead of mandatory sterilization surgery.

Jason Stanley

Jason Stanley (born 1969) is an American philosopher who is the Bissell-Heyd Chair in American studies in the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy at the University of Toronto, and also has an appointment in the department of philosophy. In addition to his position at the Munk School, he is a distinguished professor at the Kyiv School of Economics. Before coming to the University of Toronto in 2025, he held positions as a professor of philosophy at Yale University (2013–2025), Rutgers University (2004–2013), the University of Michigan (2000–04), and Cornell University (1995–2000)

Early life and education
Stanley was raised in Central New York in a Jewish family.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Stanley.

[borjastick]

Yet strangely the joos of israel and many other joos around the world simply cannot understand that they are hated. israel as a country is populated by the unhinged lunatic version of the ashkenazi breed. People like the fat little cunt Ben Gvir who really needs a chatty poo with a baseball bat but sadly he is indicative of many israelis who genuinely a)think they are God's chosen ones and b)don't understand why israel is the cesspit of the world and hated to its rotten core.

[Eye of Zyclone]

Yet strangely the joos of israel and many other joos around the world simply cannot understand that they are hated. israel as a country is populated by the unhinged lunatic version os the ashkenazi breed. People like the fat little cunt Ben Gvir who really needs a chatty poo with a baseball bat but sadly he is indicative of many israelis who genuinely a)think they are God's chosen ones and b)don't understand why israel is the cesspit of the world and hated to its rotten core.

In this instance too, there is a blatant case of semantic abuse (and even of double semantic abuse). Wanting the Palestinians out of Palestine doesn't amount to wanting the Palestinian people extinct, destroyed. The word "genocide" is a semantic abuse (according to the original meaning of this word) often used by pro-Palestinian activists to get more support for the anti-Zionist cause, and the word "self-defense" is a semantic abuse often used by pro-Israeli activists to get more support for the Zionist colonial scheme and carte blanche for Israel's brutal ethnic cleansing in that area.

Not all bloodbaths are genocides (e.g. the bloody de-Palestinization of the so-called "Holy Land") and not all genocides are bloodbaths (e.g. the [quite] bloodless browning of White countries)...

[Wahrheitssucher]

Yet strangely the joos of israel and many other joos around the world …genuinely a) think they are God's chosen ones and b) don't understand why israel is the cesspit of the world and hated to its rotten core.

…Wanting the Palestinians out of Palestine doesn't amount to wanting the Palestinian people extinct, destroyed.

But in this case it definitely DOES mean that, also.
Thus all the reference to Palestinians as Amalek.
Therefore all the deliberate targeting and murder of kids.
And that’s why there is a starvation policy that kills by resultant disease as well as malnutrition.
Etc., etc.

The word "genocide" is a semantic abuse (according to the original meaning of this word)…

No, it definitely is the exact right word to use for what the Ashkenazi settler-invaders have been doing to the Palestinians:
1.) by stealth for the last eight decades, while posing as victims, and
2.). what they have been doing in Gaza over the last 2.5 years.



So, I’m curious: why are you ok using the word for non-violent ‘genocide’ of ‘white races’ but not ok using it for 2.5 years of systematic mass-murder and destruction of habitat when it’s non-whites who are the victims targeted for ‘genocide’?