The British Government is Guilty of Genocide – Against the British People

Genocide is a word we hear a lot of these days, but it is one always directed against far away countries of which most know little and care less (the absurd accusation against Israel excepted), but there is a slow-motion act of genocide taking place under our noses, right here in dear old Blighty – the slow, but accelerating, destruction of the British people by successive British governments

Genocide does not necessarily involve violence. Its definition, the one that the British government uses, is that of the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention, according to which genocide is defined as any of the following acts, committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group by:

1. Killing members of the group;

2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The British government recognises genocide as a grave international crime and supports efforts to prevent and punish acts of genocide, yet in my opinion, it is itself guilty of at least two and probably four of the five acts named above.

Accepting, for the sake of argument, that the deadly lockdowns, covid vaccines, and pensioner freezing acts of recent governments had no group component, plausible cases can be made that the British government is guilty of causing mental and, occasionally physical, harm to the British people (The Group), and of deliberately inflicting conditions of life on them calculated to bring about their destruction.  The following two are less clear cut, but a case can also be made that the British government is imposing measures to prevent births and forcibly transferring children of The Group to another group.

For genocide to be proven it must be shown to be deliberate. There must be a proven intent to physically destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Without provable intent, a group or individual may still be guilty of “crimes against humanity” or “ethnic cleansing” but not genocide.

Victims of genocide are deliberately targeted because of their membership, real or perceived, of one of the four ‘protected’ groups mentioned above. The target of destruction must, therefore, be the group, not its members as individuals. 

Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable and “substantial” - Tommy Robinson and the ‘far right’ protesters the government so viciously suppressed, for example.

Some might think that this goes too far, saying that genocide must be violent, but the Genocide Convention, while accepting that genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or national, also accepts that it can occur without violence. 

Those are the legal hurdles that have to be overcome to prove the allegation against successive British governments, going back, in my view at least as far as Blair’s. But I think they can be cleared.

It is, conveniently, accepted by human rights lawyers, that the destruction of a culture is not genocide, so let’s leave that aside for now. But regardless of this ‘get out clause,’ I still accuse the British government and Establishment of genocide.

It seems obvious that the British government – used here to include the political branch, the civil service, the NGOs with which it acts and the broader establishment, is deliberately trying to put an end to the British national identity. It is doing so primarily by means of mass immigration, multi-culturalism (including DEI) and by giving primacy to international law (links to related articles). 

The chief requirements are there. We have a group that is being targeted for genocide; the indigenous British people as defined by Iain Hunter in his article Who’s Indigenous. But it is not skin colour or DNA that is the major factor – though whiteness now attracts much opprobrium – it is instead self-identification as British (or English) that the genocidal State is targeting for destruction.

But is it deliberate? Is the attack on British national identity a deliberate policy or is it a side effect of financial factors, political correctness or some other woke dogma? Well, we know it is deliberate because one of its practitioners has told us that it is. Just a few days ago one Kier Starmer, with all the sincerity he could fake, pretended to be shocked and outraged that over a million foreigners came to live here in the last year. Legally. 

Starmer noted that the ONS had “conducted vital work on the state of immigration and found the previous Government were running an open borders experiment.” Well I never, what a shock! The rest of us, however, are shocked at something like sixteen million foreigners coming to live in Britain since 1960 (ONS and Macrotrends figures). 

Starmer is just using a new version of the old trick of saying one thing but doing the opposite, and of trying to revive his polls by pretending to oppose the Establishment’s policy of using migration to convert a cohesive nation into a balkanised, multicultural, and chaotic entity.

He went on: “This happened by design, not accident. Policies were reformed deliberately to liberalise immigration. Brexit was used for that purpose to turn Britain into a one-nation experiment in open borders.”

So there we have it. There can be no doubt that the mass immigration that is the main weapon against British national identity is something that has been imposed on us deliberately. How could it be otherwise? Visas don’t issue themselves. And we all remember Blair saying he would ramp up immigration to rub the Right’s (the British people’s) noses in it. You would need to have been a blind, deaf and dumb recluse not to have noticed it, but can anyone remember human-rights lawyer Starmer or any other senior Labour figure opposing it? 

Needless to say, Starmer gave no indication of doing anything to stop it in his speech. Expect it to go on unchecked.

We have a clearly identifiable group, and a deliberate attempt to end its group identity - and we also have a reason: Globalism. As Starmer said “Global Britain – remember that slogan. That is what they meant. A policy with no support and which they then pretended wasn’t happening.” A bit rich this, from a PM who, as DPP pretended that mass rape by Muslim Pakistanis wasn’t happening, and who openly prefers Davos to Westminster. Starmer is an arch-globalist, clearly trying to shackle us to the globalist EU and the UN. 

The Globalist goal is global government, and they know that the nation state and national identity, especially that of ancient nations, is the major obstacle to achieving that aim, hence the need for genocide.

The unwanted importation of around sixteen million people, with no political mandate and no attempt at making them integrate and identify as British, is in itself enough to convict the Establishment of genocide, as it has undoubtedly caused serious mental harm to members of the indigenous group, many of whom have been vilified, even criminalised for opposing it, to the extent that many now fear to freely express themselves and feel disenfranchised and alienated from the globalist New World being created without their consent.

Not only that, but the official policy of imposing multiculturalism, using the full power of the State, on an unwilling people goes a long way to meet the second requirement for a genocide conviction. Rushing pro-British protestors through the courts and into jail for shouting at police dogs or making comments online can be considered as a form of serious physical harm. But if not that, it is certainly serious mental harm, designed to intimidate and inculcate fear among the target group. 

More generally, the hate crime laws, applied almost exclusively to The Group, together with obvious two-tier policing and judicial attitudes, serve to enhance the atmosphere of fear and intimidation, made even worse by other, more favoured, groups, being not only visibly appeased but supported, regardless of their actions. 

Further psychological attacks on The Group are the omnipresent, such as the constant denigration of all things British, most blatantly by the State broadcaster, with the British people for ever being told that they are racist, uniquely evil, hopeless, responsible for slavery and must pay out millions, if not billions in reparations. 

The DEI initiative and critical race theory that underpins this and which is orthodoxy at our universities and in the civil service, together with constant cries for ‘decolonisation’ (the removal of all things identifiable British), the destruction and vilification of our national icons and the extreme multiculturalism of the arts, television and commercial and public adverts, are all part of the genocidal attack. 

And it is working, with around 50% of the population now saying that they have no pride in being British. So yes, there is a convincing case that the British government has caused, and is causing, serious mental harm to members of The Group. 

And only one of the listed requirements for genocide needs to be proven, not all of them, for a guilty verdict.

Next, has the government deliberately inflicted on The Group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part? Yes, it has. 

It has allowed the creation of alien colonies in places like the East End of London and in Bradford, and with large areas of major cities like London and Birmingham, not long ago populated exclusively by indigenous Britons, now almost devoid of anything remotely resembling British national identity – genocide through colonisation.

Moving on to whether the British government has imposed measures intended to prevent births within The Group. Well, the birth rate in the indigenous population has plummeted, more or less coincident with the rise in the non-British population, sections of which have a much higher fertility rate. 

There are several factors involved of course, but the atmosphere of intimidation, gloom and despondency that result from mass immigration, and fact members of The Group know that their children will be taught that their skin colour and national identity is inherently evil by the State education system, are most certainly not conducive to bringing white British children into the world. Neither is the probability that they will soon be a minority in their own country and may well be the victims of serious social disorder, even victimisation based on their colour and British heritage.

And then there are the consequences of uncontrolled mass immigration, such as lower pay, unaffordable housing, rampant crime, terrorism and increasing social tensions, all of which inhibit The Group’s birth rate.

And finally, has the British government forcibly transferred children of The Group to another group? Yes, if you agree that brainwashing white British children into hating their nationality, as is common in State schools, counts as force. It certainly has the desired aim of getting such children to transfer their loyalty away from the traditional British identity of The Group to that of a new group, one loyal to the globalist agenda, with faith and trust put in international agencies and which hates the very notion of borders. 

In summary, a convincing case can be made that successive British governments have deliberately sought to eradicate the British identity in what amounts to intentional genocide. And this is still going on and will achieve completion by about 2050, when The Group will be a minority in its own homeland – if we do nothing about it.

Now all we need now is a case to be brought against the government at the International Court of Justice. Anyone got a few million quid to spare for a team of top-notch human rights lawyers. Elon?

Do not go gentle into that dark night.

But don’t forget, the villains of this act of genocide are not the immigrants and their descendants, but the British Establishment that imported them.