Dear Friends,
It seems to me, in conflicts like Nagorno-Karabakh, Crimea, and Taiwan the only thing that should matter is… what do the people who live there want? If they want to live under a certain government then that’s their business. Not the business of a bureaucrat in Brussels or communist in Beijing. An elite who’s never been there but condones the genocide because he or she sees the big picture. In Guyana, South America, are the people clamoring for Venezuelan rule? In the Falkland Islands do the people demand to be ruled by Argentina? But in every one of these cases, the wishes of the natives is irrelevant. The wishes of the elite are all that count. Globalist elites want the Armenians to cease to exist as do the Turks who took their land, erased their existence, and are mopping them up now.
Atrocities always flow from conflicts that disregard the wishes of the locals. Because the elite who rule against the wishes of the locals must use violence and force. The use of violence and force is like a fire in brush. Once started it grows to consume the whole pile. People naturally react to the use of violence and force. Especially once they realize the force and violence is unjust. But to enforce the philosophy that the law serves the strong at the cost to the weak. Injustice then rages in people’s hearts, and once a tipping point is reached… Yugoslavia becomes Balkanized. This is perfect soil to grow atrocities. The one side enraged by injustice, the other mechanically using violence to impose order. The conflict in Northern Ireland was of this nature. It was caused by tin-eared elites.
Uprisings are always due to poor leadership. Let’s reverse the situation. What would a government do if they wanted an uprising? It could export the jobs, use regulation to make energy so unaffordable people freeze, closing the few remaining firms. It would enforce hopelessness in the people, bring in settlers with special rights, silence local opposition with censorship and prison, and maybe allow grooming gangs to scoop up little girls… further abusing the natives. But then again, only a deeply pathological elite would do such a thing. Nevertheless, that’s what triggered the Boxer Rebellion. Where the Local Chinese felt they were being discriminated against by settlers. Who were pushing their religion on them and imposing settler culture over theirs. Then again, what thief cares about hurting feelings?
History is nothing but a list of governments that screwed around and found out. People in general could care less who or what governs them… as long as they aren’t oppressed. Except in the case of communism. Disarmed and starving people haven’t the energy to do uprisings. There are also examples like Tienamen Square. Such atrocities are effective because international outrage is smothered by the payola press. Even as the same people gin up color revolutions against democratic nations. So with the history that’s available for all to see, you would think governments would know what not to do if they don’t want uprisings. Yet, that’s exactly the road map the progressive elites are taking in Europe. So when the end of the road uprising comes, the elite will be to blame. They’re driving the car.
What this boils down to is the arrogance of the elite across time and space. If a few cultures and people have to be erased from existence, well, those atrocities will be measured against the quality of utopia they’re ushering in. That has been the reasoning behind all the atrocities since time began. The Gallic king, Brennus, who sacked Rome said, the strong must destroy the weak so the strong may survive. Self-justifying his invasion of Etruria. Pol Pot was certain that by killing almost a quarter of the population he would usher in utopia. As Hitler thought his utopia would last a thousand years. The uniting theme among all these visionaries is their lack of concern for the natives. The locals are in the way. That lack of concern for indigenous folks is how we identify such people.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
