For several millenia, there has been a rule in warfare:
If you will not make peace, and lose, and still will not make peace, you die. This is genocide, and Israel is right now carrying out genocide in Gaza, and people are getting used to it.
Some genocides, for example the attempted genocide of the Tutsi in Rwanda, which was attempted deniably by Globohomo empire proxies with air and artillery support by white Globohomo troops, and the successful genocide of some Tutsi related groups in the Congo, also carried out by proxies with white air and ground support, have been performed for utterly trivial, wicked, evil, and frivolous reasons, and were clearly illegitimate. Globohomo eliminated the Tutsi where it could for the same frivolous reasons as they eliminated the red wolves, and replaced the red wolves with something that they bred in the lab. But if the winner offers a somewhat tolerable peace, and the loser will not accept, or is unable to accept, what else can the winner do?
At Nuremberg, a new post Westphalian order was announced. Obeying the sovereign was no longer acceptable. You had to adhere to a higher moral order. Whose moral order? Not God’s. Whose?
Well, it turned out to be Harvard’s moral order, which has rapidly mutated to something evil and intolerable. But the rule against genocide seems quite reasonable, except it is selectively imposed and creatively interpreted. It was selectively imposed and creatively interpreted because it is not reasonable. War is horrible, genocidal war especially horrible, but we don’t really have a solution for war, therefore we don’t really have a solution for genocide. You need the credible possibility of genocide to force the loser to make peace, and also to remind people how terrible war is. What happened instead is that genocide was pretended away, with the result that it came to pass that peoples were genocided for frivolous and abhorrent reasons. Obama had a go at genociding the Alawites, seemingly because they refused to have an education system dominated by childless women.
The Nuremberg order is hypocrisy. And its hypocrisy has now become transparent. The trouble with hypocrisy is that piously proclaiming adherence to impractical moral principles is apt to lead to not better behaviour, but worse. Because Holocaustianity teaches that genocide is the worst thing in the world and the new moral order guarantees there will be no more genocide, genocide was attempted, and sometimes succeeded, frivolously.
If tech civilisation does not decline and collapse, well, we are all going to get more and more powerful weapons, and yes, we do need a higher moral order to avoid destroying ourselves. But the Nuremberg higher order has lost credibility. “The rules based order.” Whose rules?
Our best prospects to avoid the nukes flying in the near future is a return to the Westphalian order. Once Westphalia is in force again, then we can start thinking about the Christian laws of just war, and then we can start thinking about a higher moral order. During the concert of Europe this actually worked. It can work again. But that higher moral order has to focus, as it focused in the Concert of Europe, on not starting wars that are likely to get too big, rather than not finishing a war once it has started. War is hell. That cannot be fixed. What can be done, because it was done for quite a while, is avoiding really big wars.
The Nato states on Russia’s border are an intolerable threat to Russia, because Russians plausibly believe they lack real sovereignty. If they do lack real sovereignty, they may be unable to make peace, necessitating a genocidal solution. People are refusing to think about this, because genocide is unthinkable. They should have thought about it before the 2014 coup in the Ukraine, and before Nato shells from Avdeevka start landing on the heads of civilians in Donetsk. The Concert of Europe worked by not getting into this sort of situation in the first place, not by forbidding terrible solutions to it.
If Europe, rather than Poland, or rather than X, gets to decide what posts Poles are allowed to read on X, this is likely to lead to the destruction of every Polish city and the death of most Poles. It is far more important, far more effective, and far easier, to have a rule against this sort of thing than to have a rule against genocide.
If Europe, but not Poland nor individual Poles, can decide what Poles can read on X, this reveals that Europe, but not Poland, can decide anything that actually matters, which is likely to make it impossible to for Poland to stay out of the war when Ukraine collapses, and impossible to make peace with Russia should they lose, with the result that all their stuff gets destroyed, and most of them die.
Populations should be assigned to and be the responsibility of state egregores, and should be sent — or sent back, in many cases — to the state egregore in cases of misbehavior or unassimilability. (Not to mention illegals, who are criminal invaders and should be treated as such.)
Thus, if authentic Americans don’t like Indians, should send them to India, if you don’t like Jews, should send them to Israel, and if you don’t like blacks, send them to Africa. This at least minimizes the need for genocide. And similarly, some Islamic/Arab entities should take in the Palestinians.
They don’t want the Palestinians for the same reason as you don’t. Burma has a similar problem with the Rohingya Mohammedans.
Well, unlike some of the Hasbara shills, I don’t claim that the Gazans are “uniquely evil,” and in my view they are about in the same league of dysfunction as Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, etc. The Middle-East is, in large part, a hodgepodge of 85 IQ Jihadi sandniggers, and the Palestinians fit right in.
Be that as it may, the Democrats must never win another election.
The Palestinian Mohammedans are not evil. Rather, the problem is that they take Mohammedanism seriously enough that it is a lot harder to make peace with them than with Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, etc. And hard for Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, etc to make peace with them.
Why do you think that some Islamic/Arab entities should take in the Palestinians?
You seems to assume a moral duty of some Islamic/Arab entities. Where does this duty come from?
Why is America full of whites, with the few remaining Indians huddling in reservations; Australia a nation of whites, with a scattering aborigines; but India is absolutely full of Indians? They were all colonized. Agricultural peoples have economic value as a subject population. Hunter-gatherers do not. The subject jeet population was worth something. They grew cotton for England’s textile industry. It was rational to keep them around.
But now, we live in the post-agricultural age. Farming can be largely automated. We don’t need a huge surly peasant population seething with hatred against us. Absent abstract moral considerations, genocide is the practical choice.
Lets stop subsidizing food exports to the 3rd world before we jump to genocide; populations that can feed themselves versus those that can’t is a clear line compared to surly peasant population.
Poland is like 1990’s UK now, [*deleted because presupposes democracy reflects the will of the people]
I think the real issue with the red wolf isn’t about wolves. It’s about polar bears. They’re just bears that happen to have white fur and trivial metabolic adaptations to cold weather. But they’re a holy species in the context of global warming. Fur color is sacred. To a dirt person, a bear is just a bear and a wolf is just a wolf, but dirt people smell funny are are probably white and they don’t matter.
If you want to push a position likely to be controversial, you have to make an argument, not presuppose that everyone agrees that it is obviously true.
Obviously suicide by nato is no more popular in Europe than murder by infinigger. Infinigger is not because no one thinks about the consequences, but because the ruling elite hate their people and intend to destroy them.
Genocide has usually been an ultima ratio. If the loser does not accept the offer it might be that the loser has no leadership or a leadership that does not want to accept that offer. In either case, the winner can make an attempt at installing a new leadership. If that that is not possible, the winner can attempt to simply kill the leadership and hope that the new leadership is more willing and able to accept the somewhat tolerable peace.
If genocide is on the table, the loser’s leadership can be killed several times before that approach for a solution is given up. If repeatedly killing the loser’s leadership did not produce the desired results, the next step in history was usually an attempt to break up the loser’s state into smaller entities. Maybe some of the smaller entities will accept a somewhat tolerable peace offer.
Anyway, genocide implies that there is a gens, i.e. a tribe or nation. If an empire loses, it can easily be split up into smaller parts that can be managed independently of each other. Carthage was an empire the Romans could not make peace with, but they genocided only the population of the city Carthage. They had no problem ruling the other parts of Carthage’s empire.
Now, the Palestinians are a gens and therefore in danger of genocide. In contrast, Russia fights an empire. Genociding some vassals would be pointless. It might still happen, but then it would simply be collateral damage of war rather than a policy goal.