Mercenaries, Private Defense, and Genocide
Re.: Mercenaries, Private Defense, and Genocide
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff125.html
It is clear that the world’s system of states does not have a method of policing genocides, despite the fact that the states claim to be in the business of protecting citizens. Why not? Such a method would require interference of one state in the so-called domestic affairs of another state, and states do not want to interfere with other states typically. If they did, it would mean war and they avoid wars unless there’s something in it for them. Each gang (state) more or less respects the turf of the other gangs. In this way, each gang holds on to its power – the most important aim of the gang. Stopping genocide and saving lives is not the object of these gangs (states.)
I don’t even have to say that states shouldn’t be in the business of stopping genocides or go into the reasons why they shouldn’t be, because they don’t do it anyhow. This is one government program they avoid like the plague.
It’s one thing for states to do nothing, but they proactively make matters far worse. States do not allow mercenaries. This is U.N. law! Being a mercenary is a crime, forbidden by international law.
-- Michael S. Rozeff.
"If a state is committing genocide, the people being killed have the right to self-defense. They have a right to hire mercenaries and recruit volunteer soldiers to defend them."
A bold revolutionary political statement for sure, but given the incompetence of the current regime in South Africa to stop the farm murders, or shouldn't we rather make the dire assumption that it's turning a blind eye to these scandalous events, relying on thugs to decimate the Afrikaander presence in their so extolled rainbow nation, hired guns could be advanced as a solution, when all other, peaceful resources fail.
Another possibility is to set up a taskforce of rangers, recruited among the famers themselves or contracting a specialized security agency, patrolling the areas of tension and dispute day and night, counterstriking the roisterers.
Back in Europe, a unholy trinity of political caste, corporations (media, haute finance...) and NGO's (including 'street' or 'social' workers) works against the interests of its native citizens and deliberately intends first by free migrations, open borders policies, thereafter downseizing our liberties in favour of anti-discrimination laws and a retrograde social vialibility of the coming generations of our people due to positive discrimination and cheap labour from wherever the wind blows, the forced but in reality divided coexistence of two communities manouevred into assimilation of the intruders and so forth, reeks of an antagonistic eugenic program not just to alter a country into a multiracial potpourri but rather to disfranchise completely the autochtones and make them redundant.
It's a slow-burning, very delicately handled genocide, stretched over time but also more concentrated, intensified.
Since we're disowned by the state, our answer should be:public and legal disobedience against its institutions and representatives, secession; eventually para-military warfare to replace a government that serves foreign interests by a state owned as a communal property by the people.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff125.html
It is clear that the world’s system of states does not have a method of policing genocides, despite the fact that the states claim to be in the business of protecting citizens. Why not? Such a method would require interference of one state in the so-called domestic affairs of another state, and states do not want to interfere with other states typically. If they did, it would mean war and they avoid wars unless there’s something in it for them. Each gang (state) more or less respects the turf of the other gangs. In this way, each gang holds on to its power – the most important aim of the gang. Stopping genocide and saving lives is not the object of these gangs (states.)
I don’t even have to say that states shouldn’t be in the business of stopping genocides or go into the reasons why they shouldn’t be, because they don’t do it anyhow. This is one government program they avoid like the plague.
It’s one thing for states to do nothing, but they proactively make matters far worse. States do not allow mercenaries. This is U.N. law! Being a mercenary is a crime, forbidden by international law.
-- Michael S. Rozeff.
"If a state is committing genocide, the people being killed have the right to self-defense. They have a right to hire mercenaries and recruit volunteer soldiers to defend them."
A bold revolutionary political statement for sure, but given the incompetence of the current regime in South Africa to stop the farm murders, or shouldn't we rather make the dire assumption that it's turning a blind eye to these scandalous events, relying on thugs to decimate the Afrikaander presence in their so extolled rainbow nation, hired guns could be advanced as a solution, when all other, peaceful resources fail.
Another possibility is to set up a taskforce of rangers, recruited among the famers themselves or contracting a specialized security agency, patrolling the areas of tension and dispute day and night, counterstriking the roisterers.
Back in Europe, a unholy trinity of political caste, corporations (media, haute finance...) and NGO's (including 'street' or 'social' workers) works against the interests of its native citizens and deliberately intends first by free migrations, open borders policies, thereafter downseizing our liberties in favour of anti-discrimination laws and a retrograde social vialibility of the coming generations of our people due to positive discrimination and cheap labour from wherever the wind blows, the forced but in reality divided coexistence of two communities manouevred into assimilation of the intruders and so forth, reeks of an antagonistic eugenic program not just to alter a country into a multiracial potpourri but rather to disfranchise completely the autochtones and make them redundant.
It's a slow-burning, very delicately handled genocide, stretched over time but also more concentrated, intensified.
Since we're disowned by the state, our answer should be:public and legal disobedience against its institutions and representatives, secession; eventually para-military warfare to replace a government that serves foreign interests by a state owned as a communal property by the people.
Comments