Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire "It's more than amnesty; it's genocide for European-Americans"

It's more than amnesty; it's genocide for European-Americans

by H. Millard (c) 2007

May 18, 2007

Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, 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."

Here's a clarification I want to make with how I'm using the word genocide in this column. I'm using it to mean the destruction by any means of a genetic group. In my use of the term, criminal acts are not required. Gen=genes + cide=death. Death of genes.

Flooding the U.S. with non-European genes, coupled with the massive "anti-racism" conditioning of our age, leaves European Americans vulnerable and open to committing their own bedroom genocide.

Before going on, let me be very clear. I speak for myself. I'm not a member of any anti-immigration group and I expect many people, maybe even most, in these groups will disagree with me. So be it. We still have a little freedom of speech left in this country (but how long it will last is anyone's guess), and I choose to use a little of my free speech to tell others about the continuing extinction of European genes that is happening right before our eyes.

You can be excused if you're one of the slow boiled frogs who can't see the genocide. It hasn't come with marching boots and gas chambers, but with walking shoes and smiles.

But genocide it is.

And, the present amnesty and open borders scheme being hailed by George Bush and some in congress is really just another chapter in the move to destroy distinctions between different peoples, nations, and religions and blend them all together into a bland and conformist Stepfordized world. Once again, I call that genocide.

You may say it is compassionate or modern or practical what George Bush and the other blenders are doing, but that's a very short view of history. In the long run it may mean the destruction of the U.S. as we know it and the extinction of all distinct peoples. The first to become extinct will probably be White people--we are the recessive people on this planet.

To understand why I call what's going on genocide, we have to understand a few basic concepts that most people seem to ignore.

First, we have to understand that race is a reality. Race is to humans as breed is to dogs.''Race" is not a bad word. People come in races just as dogs come in breeds. The different races and different breeds have genetic differences from others of their respective species. Different races and different breeds also have different strengths and different weaknesses from others in their species. Greyhounds do run faster than poodles, for example. Different races of people do build different types of societies.

Second, evolution is all about differences. Current scientific thinking holds that all humans probably evolved from pre-humans living in Africa . Similarly, all dogs--from Chihuahuas to Great Danes, and everything in between, sprang from wolves.

Now, as humans moved out of Africa, they adapted and changes as they lived under different conditions. In this regard, nature is automatically accommodating and constantly causes minor changes--mutations--to occur that may allow living things, including humans, the ability to survive in new environments.

Some of these changes spread through a population precisely because they do help people survive in certain conditions where it might not be possible or might be more difficult without these changes.

In fact, it has been estimated that nature makes about one "mistake" for every 10 million bases of DNA that are copied. That may not sound like many mistakes--mutations, again--but when you realize that each human carries about 3 billion bases, you can see that there are lots of changes going on all the time.

These little mutations may not continue to exist in the population if there is no survival benefit from them. But, if there is a survival benefit--such as white skin to let in more sun to produce a proper amount of Vitamin D to prevent rickets in cold and cloudy environments--they may become the norm in that environment.

That's exactly what happened. Humans who moved to Europe adapted and developed white skin and many also became blond and blue eyed and acquired a whole host of differences from those who remained in Africa or who moved to other lands. As the centuries passed, more and more differences crept in, not only in the things we can easily see, but also in the way people were and what they valued and the types of societies they built.

And, speaking of white skin, recent research seems to indicate that a mutation in just one amino acid in gene SLC245A found in Chromosome 15 is why White people are white.

As it so happens, when you change one gene just a little, there is often a cascade of other changes that occur as a result. For example, you don't just get white skin--you get all sorts of other things along with it. Some may be positive and some negative. In the latter category is a higher risk of skin cancer caused by the sun. It's like the old, "if you want the bull, you have to take the horns" statement.

Given the ignorant temper of our times, it's probably necessary to add at this point that awareness of human differences does not equal hate and it does not equal a belief in a general superiority of one group over another. There are just differences and they should be looked at and studied as coolly and scientifically as we look at differences between different breeds of dogs.

Once a group of people has such differences, it may wish to retain those differences. People in the group may like themselves just the way they are and not want to be changed. The usual way people state this is to say that they want their children to look like them. That is their natural right as human beings. Now, in order to remain the way they are, means that they have to retain and pass on the genetic traits that they possess.

Here comes the real problem with flooding European gene pools with non-European genes.

Many of the traits that are found in European descended peoples are recessive. This means that it takes two copies of a gene for these traits to be present for the trait to be expressed. That's why I wrote, above, that Whites are the recessive people. It takes more effort to make us. In simplest terms, if you have blue eyes, blond hair and white skin, your best bet in having children with those traits is to mate with others who also have these traits. In this regard you may have read news stories this past year about how some scientists are saying that blond hair may become extinct. Why? Because of an influx of non-blond genes into the gene pool. Put another way, we could say the default is to non-White characteristics.

Generally speaking, many of the darker features: eyes, skin, hair are dominant. This means they only need one copy of a gene to be present in order to be expressed. So, if a blue eyed person and a dark eyed person have children, most of the children will have dark eyes. Again, blue eyes require blue eyed genes from both mother and father while dark eyes only require one parent to contribute dark eyed genes.

Genes are carried by chromosomes. Humans have 46 chromosomes. We get 23 from our father and 23 from our mother at the moment of conception.

Because, as we noted above, most uniquely European-American traits are recessive, we need to have two parents with European genes in order to have our genotype (our internal blueprint) and phenotype (our outward appearance) continue and not become extinct. Thus, we need 23 European chromosomes from the father and we need 23 European chromosomes from the mother. Now, it does get more complicated than that and there are millions of genes on those chromosomes, but this is the basic idea.

Book




"THE OUTSIDER", H. Millard's novel of alienation in post- American America is available. "OURSELVES ALONE & HOMELESS JACK'S RELIGION", H. Millard's latest novel, is available. "ROAMING THE WASTELANDS", H. Millard's novel, is available.

Get them by phone: 877-823-9235, or
click on links above to order.
(Not A Paid Ad)


If you live in a country where there are many people with the genetic traits you want to preserve, your probability of mating with someone with those traits is higher than if you live in a country where there are few others with those traits. It's just common sense.

Thirdly, the U.S. was a new Europe for most of its first hundred and fifty or so years of existence. Forget that sop about it being a "melting pot." That term was coined when different European "nationalities" (not races) were coming here. In the U.S., the English married their Irish and French and German and Swedish and other European cousins. They then became a plain wrap European on the American shores.

They were still genetically like their cousins in Europe. Take any European-American and plop him down in any European nation and he'd pretty much fit in and not be seen as an outsider. Of course, the same thing holds true with African-Americans and Africa and Chinese-Americans and China as well as with other groups. In other words, we are our genes. That is the sources of our essential selves, not the country in which we live. Nationalities are artificial. Genes are authentic. That's the point of this essay. Genes matter and genes are us. With different genes, we are, literally, not ourselves. With a nation full of different genes, the U.S. will become less and less like a new Europe and more and more like other parts of the world as European-Americans mate with the ever more available non-Europeans.

European-Americans have been browbeaten into submission in this country with the term "racism" and similar words. We have mostly learned to shut up and not be ourselves, lest we be called racists; which is usually defined to mean racial hatred.

My guess is that most European-Americans don't hate anyone because of their race or anything else, and generally we get along fine with all peoples. We cooperate with everyone in areas where we have common interests and we treat others as we want to be treated.

Still, no matter how much goodness is in our hearts, we fear that if we talk about our own people--European-Americans--or openly and honestly discuss race and genes, we will be put in the same column with those who might attack others because of their race.

Frankly, this must have been the way it was during the Witch hysteria in Salem, Mass. Anyone who spoke out against the injustice being done to some people was, in turn, also labeled a Witch, so people just shut up.

So, today, we self-censor ourselves. We shut up. And, in shutting up, we harm ourselves and those to come after us. We become like whipped dogs and we become less than we can be and should be. We are no longer fully functioning human beings with the intellectual and emotional freedom to let our minds go where they will. We become neutered. We become aracial eunuchs. Everyone else can have a race or ethnicity, but not us. We have to be "above" nature.

I'm saying this has to end. We must take back our right to be and we must take back our right to self-identity and self-determination and I also believe that this is directly related to controlling our borders and deciding who to let in and who not to let in.

On Thursday, key Republican and Democrat senators announced an agreement with the White House on an amnesty bill that will continue the invasion of the U.S. by millions and millions of non-Europeans who will dump trillions and trillions of their genes in the gene pool which may eventually cause the extinction of European-Americans. Call it bedroom genocide. That's what it is. And, it will probably come one or two traits at a time. Fewer blonds. Fewer blue eyes. Darker skin. And then on and on and on. Soon, there will be no more Europeans in the U.S.

Of course, things are never as simple as they sometimes are written on paper. There are also moves among some non-European peoples to regain their own genetic heritages that have been watered down by the influx of European genes into their gene pools. We see this in Hawaii where the native Hawaiians are trying--but, they don't call it this--to distill out the European genes from their people. We also see it with various American Indian tribes. And, there are some Black groups who want to remain black and not be watered down by White genes.

Some of these peoples understand what many European-Americans are afraid to say: Genes matter. Without American Indian genes, for example, one is not an American Indian no matter how often one dresses up as an American Indian. It is the same with all other peoples. All peoples begin and end with genes.

The psychotic blending zeitgeist of our age demands that all peoples, all religions and all nations be blended together. This is anti-evolutionary, anti-life, and genocidal. People are not fungible. They are all different and they have a right to remain different.

George Bush and those who think like him are destroying distinct peoples, distinct nations and distinct religions. In the U.S. they're doing this by swamping the European gene pool with non-European genes. Why isn't this called genocide?

Millard does an excellent job of explaining genetics--including how northern Europeans generally cary recessive genes.

With an education in biology, I'm well aware of the idea of diversity as being considered a good thing--but there can be too much of good thing. It can be a bad thing when genetic change occurs faster than evolution can sort out the gentic changes--often resulting in a "loss" in the number of different species/subspecies (or breeds).

One of the advantages of genetic differences and separate populations is that disease does not spread as easily when there are different alleles among separate populations.

Another is that different mutations are more likely to occur when we see different populations with different alleles. Although most mutations are "deleterious" (they lower the chance of survival) the one in a million mutant gene improves chances of survival.

These differences are part of that genetic diversity that current thought says is one of the most important factors in the survival of a species.

Which is why "homogenizing" different populations--especially as rapidly as we currently are--can work against the human race.........maybe. Then again, there may be some benefit we are not aware of that outwieghs the risks.

Casey

H. Millard would not like this very much:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25543_Seattle_Dhimmitude_Watch#comments

Seattle Dhimmitude Watch
The Seattle Public School system is doing its part to make sure American children will be ready to welcome their new Islamic overlords: Seattle Public Schools | Equity and Race Relations.

Presenter: Hate Free Zone

Mission and Goals: Hate Free
Zone Washington is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to uphold the fundamental principles of democracy and justice. Our goals are to:

* Empower immigrant communities to advocate for equality, dignity and respect.
* Build a collective voice for immigrants and refugee communities in the political system.
* Restore and protect civil liberties and human rights, regardless of citizenship status
* Undo stereotypes and free society from discrimination and hate.

Our Programs:
Our work integrates three critical areas that act as the catalyst for systemic change: Political advocacy and mobilization, community support and education.

Post 9.11 Backlash
This training covers the specific impact of the backlash against immigrant and religious minority communities in the U.S. after September 11th, 2001. Real stories will be shared including those of people targeted with hate crimes, bullying/harassment, employment and housing discrimination, and detentions and deportations.

Bias-based Bullying (Religion, Race and Culture)
How can we recognize and prevent bullying, harassment, and violence based in bias regarding a student�s religion, race, or culture? This training will explore this topic and show a short video of students speaking from their own experience.

Islam and Muslim Americans
How can we better understand our Muslim students? This presentation covers many aspects of Islam including:

Common Misconceptions and Stereotypes
Women in Islams
Basics of Islam
Jihad
Key Terms and Phrases
Muslims in America in the World

Muslim Prayer in Schools
Why do Muslim students need to leave my class to pray? This presentation focuses on accommodating Muslim students in school. Specifically, we cover prayer requirements for Muslim youth as well as other important information for making a school and classroom Muslim-friendly.

The proposed amensty bill is just that, but disguised a bit. This should talke care of any plans McCain had. Bush is so good on the terror war but so much of a moron on closing the borders.

We Americans are slowly losing our culture and way of life. We are frogs in a pot of multi-cultural stew.

Because we are failing to learn the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat them. (Winston Churchill)

I agree with everything but the evolutionary theory, call me crazy, but I still be live in divine creation. Other than this one issue, I believe we are slowly contaminating our gene pool to the point of no return. In addition I believe the Mexican people have never gotten over the our annexation of the western US, and their actions/quotations at their demonstrations are indications that they hope to accomplish by the use illegally migrating and the claims of racism, what they could never do by force of arms. If this opinion labels me as a conspiracy nut and racist, So Be It.

For God, Country, and the enforcement of the existing immigration laws!

Jim Berry

Anyone that votes for this immigration bill is a traitor. PERIOD!

George, sad to say, with his unauthorized North American Trade deals and seeming desperate need to open our lower border is the ultimate traitor.

I am at a total loss, why can't the GOP get it's politicos under control? They are going to run millions of people away from the party.

I can't see a potential president in either party at this time. I refuse to vote a ,"party line", for a traitorous bunch of career political hacks.

TERM LIMITS, TERM LIMITS, TERM LIMITS.

Most Messicans have no more sense of history than a coyote that comes across the border after a jackrabbit. There may be some among their leaders that see this as an opportunity to re-write history, but the average Messican just wants to feed his family. Opposition to open borders/amnesty proposals, etc. based on race are doomed to failure due to the prevailing sentiment in this country. Just look at any thread on the War Between the States and you'll see there are plenty of idiots, even at the Campfire. How then does one expect to educate the general populace?

Personally, the United States isn't about race or preserving one race over another or whatever. It's about a way of life free from oppression. The problem with race is that many of those from south of the border are so used to oppression, that they are easier for those who would dominate their fellow man to do just that to.

There are plenty of reasons to close the borders without even playing the race card. Economic reasons alone are plentiful. My biggest concern is simply over-population. There are a bunch of concerns that come with over-population but the simplest and biggest IMO, is simply, who wants to live all crowded up? The American people responded to science and lowered their birthrate (at least those in the upper classes have) whereas other countries and our own lower SES populations (which resemble those countries) haven't. Letting more in will only overcrowd the country further and also further increase the birthrate. Humanity is overdue for a culling and with the immigrants it comes to us.

My God, as bad as the choices are within the Republican party, the alternative of Billary or Osama-Anythingyawanna would be a tragedy beyond even Our comprehension!

But +10 on the TERM LIMITS!

For God and Country

Jim Berry

THIRD PARTY, THIRD PARTY, THIRD PARTY. Now is a really good time for a third party to make significant inroads in our political system--but the best place is in the state legislatures.

Colorado has term limits--it really has made little difference so far.........

Casey

To me race doesn't have a d*mned thing to do with it and such arguments only strengthen the position of the opposition who will say "Youre a racist and oppose amnesty for that reason." - - - America is a melting pot of different peoples and cultures from around the world. But we took the ideas & principles of the founders who primarily came from an English & Christian background and heritage (land of the Magne Carta) & formed a nation. Then all those that came here brought their contributions and became AMERICANS. - - - They spoke a common language, shared a common history & love for Freedom. They may be Italian-American, Irish-American, Jewish-American, Mexican-American, or whatever - - - but they were AMERICANS first. The danger in the amnesty bill is that it legalizes millions of people who have no loyalty to this country (and are proud to be citizens of their home countries), haven't assimilated our culture, and do not speak our language. - - In fact, the politicians see a huge advantage in promoting division among the people, so that they can make focused appeals to them to get votes and play them off each other. - - As radio host Michael Savage says - A Nation is about Borders, Language, and Culture.

I think the guy is being just a little over-dramatic.

Genocide?

Sheesh.

The US response to its illegal immigration problems is completely wrongheaded--right, middle, and left. The solution is not amnesty. The solution is not a border fence. The solution is not deportation. The solution is not a beefed-up Border Patrol with a license to kill. The solution is not heavy penalties for employers. All of these proposals will be quite lucrative for government and government contractors, but none of them will work.

If the problems caused by illegal immigration are to be solved, two things must happen--and both of them involve less government expenditure, not more.

First, the minimum wage must be abolished. It's pricing American workers out of the market for unskilled work, and only illegal workers who accept less are left. The higher the minimum wage, the more irresistible the temptation to hire illegals. And no, trying to penalize such employers is not going to work, because employers who hire illegals are going to make bigger profits than employers who don't, and they'll use those profits to influence politicians not to make such laws, cops not to enforce them, and judges to throw cases brought against them. If you want Americans doing unskilled labor, you have to make it profitable to hire Americans for unskilled labor.

Second, the government entitlements available to illegals have to be cut off. Since government agencies that hand out more entitlements get their budgets expanded, and therefore have all sorts of incentive to give handouts to illegals regardless of what the law says, that evaluates to saying that all government entitlements have to be cut off. Which would be a great idea from angles other than the immigration one as well, of course.

Make these two changes, and illegal immigration will cease to be a problem. The ones who simply want to suck the government teat won't come across anymore because there won't be any government teat; those who want to make money may still come across, but they won't be a market distortion because they won't be subsidized by the minimum wage.

Of course, minimum wage and entitlements being two major sources of votes, the government is never going to abolish either of them; but, illegal immigration being a major source of profit for folks that make really big campaign contributions, it's never going to do anything else that might seriously endanger it either.

RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RON PAUL. Register as a Republican and get this guy the nomination. If he doesn't make the cut anyway, then a third party would be a viable option. The only candidates worth voting for are being ignored by the media and their own party.

so we need to not worry about our border security and just do away with minimum wage and social programs. I dont disagree with that but i want border security to prevent another fort dix in the making not just for immigrants

Well, it's not only bad for Americans with EU ancestry, but for every legal resident and tax payer in the US. I am a naturalized American (born overseas), who later served in the military for twenty years. I would hate to see such an "amnesty" bill passing, and will vote NO in future elections on any Alaska representative in Congress who goes along with this bill. That's all I can do besides letting them know what I think about it.

likely it's not too late for the iron fist of the federal army to stop the infiltration of the illegal aliens/terroists/invaders at the border. and if they declare they're drug dealers, they're still summarily dismissed if they cross onto US soil.

I understand where you're coming from; however, I think it's a little unrealistic to expect border security--or any government agency, for that matter--to stop terrorists. The whole point of terrorists is that they don't operate against a government, they operate against citizens. Therefore, there's no way government can be particularly efficient at stopping them: they have to be stopped by citizens.

I mean, like I said, I see what you're saying: the government claims it's their responsibility to stop dangerous people from coming into the country at the border; therefore, you'd like to see 'em put their money (well, okay, your money--and mine) where their mouth is and actually git 'er done for a change.

And I have to say that even from where I sit it'd be nice to see the government actually accomplish something for a change rather than simply making excuses that the reason it didn't manage to accomplish whatever it failed at this time is that its budget wasn't big enough.

But the US border is awfully, awfully long, and there are parts of it that are pretty freakin' remote. I think it's simply unrealistic to expect any entity--especially one as incompetent as the government--to be able to protect the whole thing against half a dozen bad guys sneaking across.

No, the government didn't fulfill the responsibility it claimed for itself on 9/11; the only monkeywrench that managed to get thrown into the terrorists' mechanism was one that private citizens on Flight 93 managed to produce. I think that's a pretty good model for the entire struggle. Government foreign policy produces terrorists; but it takes individuals, not government, to defend against terrorists.

the great wall of china is long
east germany had long borders
we're better than both of them if we try our hardest

I'd beg to differ that the border of the DDR was of the same magnitude as the border of the US; but that aside, the Great Wall of China and the DDR border defenses (particularly the ones outside Berlin) were meant to be proof against invading armies: to slow them down and act as early warning devices so that the invaders could be met with repelling force. And they were both good at what they were designed for.

However, neither structure was particularly effective at keeping the occasional well-prepared single person or small group of people from sneaking across. Terrorists don't come in armies, they come in dribs and drabs. Building a fence is a waste of resources, in my opinion, because although it would be good at stopping an army, there's no army to stop; and for its professed purpose--stopping an occasional well-financed and -informed terrorist--it would be hardly any good at all.

But only in conjunction with a government that is willingly helping to guard the borders. A fence (or some facsimile) is needed, along with patrols, and a policy of making it unpleasant for those who are caught crossing and/or in the USA already. An apathetic government will make the citizen effort somewhat ineffective.

A talking head official commenting on the Fort Dix crew noted last week that most of the suspected terroristists so far were apprehended based on citizen tips--as opposed to government intelligence/police agenciies.

Casey

Here's what we're facing.

Year Population
1 200 million
1000 275 million
1500 450 million
1650 500 million
1750 700 million
1804 1 billion
1850 1.2 billion
1900 1.6 billion
1927 2 billion
1950 2.55 billion
1955 2.8 billion
1960 3 billion
1965 3.3 billion
1970 3.7 billion
1975 4 billion
1980 4.5 billion
1985 4.85 billion
1990 5.3 billion
1995 5.7 billion
1999 6 billion
2000 6.1 billion
2005 6.45 billion
2006 6.5 billion
2010 6.8 billion
2020 7.6 billion
2030 8.2 billion
2040 8.8 billion
2050 9.2 billion

You'll note that when Columbus discovered America, the population of the world stood at somewhat less than a half billion.

At year 1800 it finally reached 1 billion.

At 1900 it was up to 1.6 billion,.. but then things began to run very fast.

At year 2000 the population of the world stood at 6.1 billion.

To put in in perspective for you, at age 51 I've seen the population of the world more than double. I've seen 3X the number of people added to the planet than came about from the dawn of man to the year 1800. And in another 50 years yet another 3 billion will be added. By the year 2100 the population of the planet will exceed 12 billion people.

12X as many as existed a scant 300 years ago.

Any western nation which plans to survive the next 100 (even the next 50!) years needs to have a very strict immigration system in place. Those who don't will simply have their nation overwhelmed and destroyed.

It's as simple as that.

America has no strict immigration system and no plan to adopt one. In fact, the doors are wide open.