Lasha Darkmoon — Darkmoon March 18, 2016
Carlos Whitlock Porter (pictured) says : “Gun them down on the beaches, drown them at sea, starve them on land — to hell with them!”
The fact that Carlos Porter, a well-known writer with several books under his belt and thousands of fans who think very highly of his work, should openly preach the mass extermination of illegal immigrants on our website clearly presents us with a moral dilemma.
Porter is in clear breach of our own website policies which stipulate that all comments containing incitement to violence will be deleted at once. The fact that his comments still remain undeleted therefore seem not only to make a mockery of our website policies but to expose us to the accusation of complicity in incitement to violence.
Allow me to explain the situation by quoting all the participants in this debate in the proper order. Here, first of all, is Carlos Porter’s incendiary comment recommending the mass extermination of all illegal immigrants. This was in response to a recent article published on the Darkmoon site, White Genocide: The Mass Rape and Murder of the European People:
CARLOS PORTER: Machine-gun them all, and if that doesn’t work, how about napalm or poison gas? What the hell do we have an army for? Not to mention an Air Force? If you kill enough of them, the rest will quit coming and to hell with them. It wouldn’t even take very many, because they are beggars, cowards. Snivelling, whining, cry-babies. So it wouldn’t even take a lot of killing.
They’ve had everything they wanted for 60 years. They wanted us to get out of our colonies and just hand them over; we did. They wrecked them, so now they want to move here. The results are already just the same. Let them rot in the mess they created.
Machine-gun them on the beaches, drown them at sea, and starve them on land. What did we go to Vietnam for? We’ve got the hardware. All just sitting there, doing nothing.
Deportation won’t work. Put them in camps in the desert or shoot them. There’s no other way. Fill out the paper work later.
An inflammatory comment? Absolutely. It couldn’t be more inflammatory. This is not the Porter I know, the sober historian meticulously compiling his facts from reams of historical documents buried away in various archives. It is not the polymath and polyglot researcher who renounced his American citizenship several years ago and relocated to Europe with his wife and children, making a new life for himself on a new continent.
When Porter first abandoned America, the country of his birth, it was because he was thoroughly disillusioned with America and wanted to distance himself from it and disown it. Europe, the county of his original ancestors, seemed the answer. Here he would rediscover his roots and drink from the pure fountains of a higher culture. Imagine then his consternation when Europe began to grow sick and wither at the roots as the dregs of the Third World, like the rampaging hordes of Genghiz Khan, began to pour in from Africa and Asia.
It was all too much for Porter, as indeed it has been all too much for many other Europeans who have seen themselves disenfranchised by this new United States of Europe that has surreptitiously taken shape under their very noses, without them being fully aware of what was going on. Europe, it seems, has been silently taken over by a gang of neo-Bolshevik Jews and their mercenary gentile lackeys. None of these bureaucrats have been elected to office. They have all slunk into power like slithering serpents making their way into an unguarded house.
In the perception of many, this is no longer Europe. It is Eurostan.
Franklin Ryckaert, a respected writer on the Darkmoon site, was not impressed by Porter’s immoderate language. As far as Ryckaert was concerned, Porter had crossed all red lines. He quotes some of Porter’s more inflammatory sentences and then demonstrates that such sentiments were incompatible with the policies of the Darkmoon website, which clearly state: “Posters who resort to 4-letter-word obscenities, ribald sex talk, and foul abuse will be given a warning and then invited to leave. So will agents provocateurs guilty of incitement to violence, genocide, and the mass extermination of various ethnic groups. Freedom of speech is fine, but we don’t want our website to be shut down.”
Porter’s response was defiant, but Ryckaert’s counter-response remained cool and measured:
Your proposal of the merciless extermination of refugees is the problem. That is not only morally unacceptable but even unnecessary. Australia’s policy of towing refugee boats back to Indonesia or temporally settling refugees in unpleasant camps elsewhere is working. Severe but still morally acceptable.
I cannot ban you. I am just an ordinary commenter on this website with no authority here. I only wanted to remind you that your ideas are in conflict with this website’s guidelines.
Is Ryckaert correct? Of course he is correct. It would be foolish as well as dishonest to pretend otherwise.
At this point, John Scott Montecristo, editor-owner of the Darkmoon site, intervened in an attempt to explain why Porter’s comments had not been deleted — in apparent violation of our own policies:
“You have presented us with a moral dilemma: whether to delete a comment that is clearly in breach of our own website policies or whether it may be necessary to make an exception in this particular case — owing to the relative prominence of the person making the controversial comment, the fact that he is making the comment under his own name and not under the cloak of anonymity, and the fact, finally, that his whereabouts are fully known to the authorities who could pick him up for questioning at any moment.
More on Carlos Porter can be found here:
Here is his website, containing many articles of outstanding merit:
You must understand, too, that if a prominent person like Tony Blair or Angela Merkel were to issue an inflammatory comment advocating genocide or mass extermination, such a comment would never be deleted on the grounds of its offensiveness. It would have to be published in the interests of truth.
Things came to head a few days later when this cheeky comment, purportedly from a novice monk in Japan called ‘Sardonicus’, appeared in our comment section:
I am still waiting for you to deal with this matter “at greater length in a day or two.” Why are you taking you so long? Are we to assume that you have done a U-turn on mass extermination? Has mass murder now received your blessing? Please clarify.
Advocate of Universal Peace and Love,
— § —
Who exactly is Carlos Porter? and why did this website take the decision not to delete his inflammatory comment?
“Gun them down on the beaches. If you kill enough of them,
the rest will quit coming and to hell with them.”
Carlos Porter happens to be be a prominent historical revisionist who has specialized in Holocaust studies, and it is precisely for this reason that we felt it would be inappropriate to delete his comment. It was not as if he were an anonymous troll trying to bring our website into disrepute. We have many of those, and we would have deleted similar comments of theirs instantaneously, without hesitation. But Porter is an exception to this rule. He demonstrates a new phenomenon of which the authorities need to take immediate cognizance: measure of desperation.
By this I mean that it is time for the authorities to sit up and pay attention when respected scholars like Carlos Porter throw all caution to the winds and openly begin to advocate extreme measures such as the mass extermination of groups widely perceived as dangerous enemies who threaten our very existence. Porter may be wrong in his perceptions, or he may be right. That is not the point. The point is that such perceptions are becoming increasingly common and that it is in the interests of the state to make sure that its policies do not push people over the edge. The state needs to keep its citizens calm, not drive them to apoplexy. Such men as Carlos Porter can be likened to geiger counters or thermometers or blood pressure monitors that serve to alert the government to the fact that something is seriously wrong.
Men like Porter, in other words, serve an invaluable social function: they are telling the government how far they can push us before we reach breaking point. They are telling our corrupt rulers in no uncertain terms: “We’re not going to let you hateful tyrants trample on us! You are here to govern us, not destroy us!”
The authorities, if they wish, can of course round up all the political dissidents and throw them in gulags, like their ideological forebears did in the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1953. If they have learned nothing from history, they can exterminate another 66 million people, the benchmark figure given by Solzhenitsyn—the score set by Stalin and his brood of Judeo-Bolshevik vipers. Or these corrupt and incompetent rulers can pay attention and devise a better method to pacify their populations, maybe by increasing access to pornography and hard drugs so as to zombify the masses, reducing millions to the level of robotic chimps.
They’re doing that anyway, but maybe they can accelerate the process of mass brutalization so that all resistance to their policies of enslavement become futile.
— § —
It is not as if Carlos Porter, in advocating violent resistance to the invasion of Europe, is suggesting something so inconceivably wicked that the idea is uniquely his own. On the contrary, the idea of violent resistance to this staggering invasion of Europe has occurred to millions of people. The idea had occurred to Jean Raspail, for example, French author of The Camp of the Saints—and this was long before the problem of mass immigration had achieved crisis levels. Raspail’s prescient novel was published in 1973, over 40 years ago:
The Camp of the Saints has never gone out of print, and has been translated into all major European languages–and yet the coverage of the European “migrant” crisis goes on as if it had never been written. The masses pouring in from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and a host of African countries are doing exactly what Raspail predicted.
The Camp of the Saints put the white man’s dilemma in the harshest terms: slaughter hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children or face oblivion.
The flotilla sets sail confident that Europeans do not have the nerve to kill in order to survive. Today as well, the Third World is crossing the Mediterranean confident that whites don’t have the nerve even to turn them back. Every vagabond who gets a bed in a reception center in Dortmund or Malmo tweets the good news to a hundred people back in Somalia and Syria.
They will come in endless waves until they are stopped, and if they are not stopped Europe will die, just as it does in The Camp of the Saints.
Raspail is of course playing safe. Unlike Carlos Porter, he is not advocating the mass extermination of economic migrants posing as desperate refugees. Instead, he is being more cunning and devious. He is saying: “When push comes to shove, you guys won’t have the guts to stop the Third World invaders. You’ll just let them in, wringing your hands, you pathetic wimps. And the result? Your own extinction. Because of your moral cowardice, your doom is sealed.”
It was pretty safe for Raspail to say that. No one was going going to put him behind bars for voicing a highly speculative prediction that Europe’s days were numbered.
Recently, however, a courageous female politician—or a heartless psychopath, depending on your perspective—has upped the ante and openly recommended shooting illegal immigrants on sight. No need to let them in and check their papers, she says, just shoot them. That will keep them away; an effective deterrent. They’re not going to storm your beaches, German politician Frauke Petry suggests, if you just mow them down with machine guns.
I guess that’s true. A bullet in the brain solves most problems. Mors omnia solvit.
As I noted in a recent article:
A time may come when the now “inconceivable” occurs: this is when the unstoppable hordes of illegal immigrants are finally seen as hostile invaders and are forcibly stopped by declaring war on them. The anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany party (AFD) has in fact recommended this hawkish approach. Just weeks ago, we learn:
“AFD chairman Frauke Petry provoked outrage when she advocated border guards open fire with live ammunition on illegal asylum seekers. Days later, a poll found that almost 30 percent of Germans agreed with her.”
Think of those alarming statistics. Almost one in three Germans, if asked, would now agree that it is a sensible policy to bomb the refugee ships and shoot illegal immigrants on sight.