"War Crimes"

The Clone Wars is not a kids show... They commit heccin' warcrimearinos! WAOW!

Credit: CrackHeadKrabs | iF

Accusations of “War Crimes” and “Crimes against Humanity” are all the rage these days. I don’t know why Zoomers are so obsessed with that term, considering most of them don’t even know what it means, but it’s a hot new buzzword. The Clone Army were war criminals… Henry Kissinger was a war criminal! TF2 mercs? All war criminals! Palestine is committing war crimes! Israel is committing war crimes! Everyone’s committing war crimes! It’s like there’s a war criminal bargain sale going on! Wowie zowie!

Whatever happened to “all’s fair in love and war?” It makes sense. The idea of “war crimes” didn’t occur to most people before recently because you’re already committing acts of extreme brutality and harm in war. Albeit, a lot of war crimes actually have nothing to do with what happens in war, but on what conditions it is declared (for example, invading neutral countries). Most of the others deal with minimizing unnecessary suffering dealt to opponents, and fair treatment of POWs. Again, this is very counterintuitive. All suffering dealt to opponents serves to deter opponents from challenging your army, which is the same root purpose of killing your opponents in the first place. Often times, the most efficient ways to eliminate your opponents involve more suffering than less efficient means. How far are you going to take this? Anything which is lethal enough to kill you probably also causes a great deal of suffering, because surprisingly your body is designed to be repulsed by its own demise! What a shock!

The treatment of prisoners of war is also kind of counterintuitive, for similar reasons. People you were prepared to kill, you now have to spend a great deal of energy bringing out of the harmful environment which you are about to go back into? This is your reward for victory, and their punishment for defeat? This is why some cultures have viewed being a prisoner of war as shameful, and hazed their men into risking their lives to escape POW camps and joining back into the army. Quite a far cry from today, where we consider John McCain a hero for getting captured.

The more popular understanding of “war crimes” usually has to do with actions taken against a civilian population of an enemy country. Pretty much every pre-Napoleonic army participated in this brand of war crimes through the necessary supplementation of army supplies with looted goods, mainly food. Again, the idea that you can kill people trying to protect their homes while leaving their homes untouched is counterintuitive. Why do lives of the bravest and most virtuous of this country have no worth, but the lives of everyone else do? Because they’re participating in the game? Someone has to. Repercussion against civilian populations, or at the very least repercussions against a country which effect civilian populations, are also obviously the most expedient choice of action from a strategic point of view in many cases. Especially when the line between civilian and combatant is obscured, a common issue in partisan warfare and insurgencies.

Now, I’m not saying that you *should* commit war crimes. I’m just trying to point out that the notion of war crimes are very counterintuitive to the notion of war, and so had to be constructed artificially only partially through the moral meanderings of western political intellectuals. The initial idea behind war crimes was that two countries, for their own sakes, should agree not to commit war crimes when they go to war with each other. It was only after World War II with the establishment of the UN that war crimes became actual crimes, enforced (in theory) by international law. Of course, I say they’re only partially constructed through moral meanderings because in reality they were crystallized in an act of selective judgement towards the military enemies of the Anglo-American world. First in a relatively minor capacity to justify certain punishments or Germany after World War I, as they violated the Hague Convention, and then secondly and much more significantly after World War II at the Nuremburg Trials.

At this point, it’s a well-known fact that the Nuremburg Trials were not legitimate legal trials, or at least it should be. They were political kangaroo courts meant to humiliate the Nazi brass. Obviously, punishing people for laws put into place retroactively is not a legitimate legal practice. Secondly, the allies did engage in torture of witnesses during the Nuremburg Trials. Thirdly, the allies were only lightly self-critical, obviously ignoring things like the invasion of neutral Iran and Iceland, the Soviet involvement in Poland, the Katyn Massacre, and mass rape committed by the Red Army. The purpose of the Nuremburg Trials, second to it being a humiliation ritual, was in order to establish American judicial and political standards as “international law” and give America the authority to enforce the international law it generated to punish its enemies.

I don’t really appreciate this air of inauthenticity which underlines modern geopolitics. War crimes don’t exist, they’re just American laws they make other countries abide by very loosely. Crimes against humanity and “human rights” are also American constructs. I still abide by all being fair in love and war. So long as you are fighting a war you ought to be fighting, all necessary actions taken for the sake of that war are permissible. Likewise, you should not expect compassion from your mortal enemies. Would you expect compassion from a hurricane, or a wild animal? Everything is a force of nature.

We see accusations of war crimes and “crimes against humanity” used heavily today in the context of the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. There’s a lot of discussion over Aaron Bushnell, the soldier who committed self-immolation on film in front of the Israeli embassy because he felt guilty of perpetuating the Gazan Genocide. First of all, this guy was an insane self-hating leftist who believed it was morally justified for brown people to hurt his own family, based on the same principles he applied to the Israel-Palestine debate. So, please don’t feel he is one of us. I mean, committing suicide over brown people who will probably hate you or at best forget about you anyways is already such a pozzed thing to do. But secondly, I think the IP debate and pretty much every “land-back” movement is irritating due to the same sort of inauthentic dialogue which shapes the notion of “war crimes”.

Israel is probably effectively “genociding” the Arabs of Gaza. I mean, if you even consider Gazan Arabs to be an ethnos. Jews will deny that this is the mission statement of the state of Israel, but all things considered, it kind of is isn’t it? Creating a Jewish state in Israel requires the peopling of it with Jews, and at the very least the cultural marginalization of non-Jews. Jews were perfectly comfortable engaging in the divinely sanctioned destruction of gentiles living in their promised land within the Pentateuch. From book 20 of Deuteronomy:

^{16 “}However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. ¹⁷ Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. ¹⁸ Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.”

And of course, you cannot forget about the Amalekites, who were hated for attacking Israel on their way out of Egypt:

“Now go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Do not spare them. Kill men and women, infants and nursing babies, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.” —1 Samuel 15:3

I don’t say this as a gotcha. Genocide seems to be an enduring part of the human experience. The Bell Beaker invasion of Britain resulted in a replacement of 90% of the gene pool. Disease and warfare probably played a role in their own right, but this is at a higher rate than places like Iberia, where there was more of a “gendercide” where the men were killed and some of the women lived on to marry the Beaker Folk.

There are some other historical instances of genocide I can name off the top of my head. The Roman sack of Carthage involved the murder of almost the entire city population, with the enslavement of the remainder. The Asiatic Vespers, where Roman colonists were slaughtered in large numbers (est. 80,000) by Mithridates. The Jewish rebel Lukuas is reported to have slaughtered as much gentiles in Cyprus as he and his men could. Hadrian would pay the Jews back in kind almost two decades later during the Bar Kokhba Revolt, going on a rampage destroying every Jewish town in Judea and hoping to eradicate the Jews. The Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire can be considered effectively a genocide due to how unbelievably brutal it was. The Bantu expansion certainly involved instances of genocide, although much of its success was due to Bantus out-peopling the natives. It’s probably a similar story with Humans and Neanderthals. The Maori genocided the Moriori in a rather brutal fashion. The Crusaders engaged in some genocidal behavior against the Cathars. More of a religicide, albeit. Yeah, genocides can only happen to ethnic groups. So when commiepedotroons online tell you that telling them they’re not real women is “trans genocide”, kindly remind them that transgender people are not a race. And then top it off with a nice hanging troonjak image.

Animals also engage in genocide. Chimpanzees, our closest relative, genocide other Chimpanzees (god I hate citing Jared Diamond, but he’s right about this).

Also, on another note, the ultimate mission of the Palestinians is to genocide the Israeli Jews. Remember, genocide means to kill a nation. It doesn’t necessarily mean this has to be done through murdering every subject of that nation. Simply by dispersing them across the world, you have done what you needed to do. Of course, Jews tend to have a way of sticking around in spite of this, it’s one of their special abilities. Israelis don’t care where the Gazans go, as long as they’re not in Israel (including claimed Israeli land). Likewise, Palestinian goals very obviously involve either the deprivation of political rights from Jews in Israel, or the mass deportation (if not violent outrooting) of Jews in Israel. No Palestinians have ever been particularly supportive of “Two-State Solutions”, understandably I suppose. Because Jews make up the demographic majority in Israel at this point, Palestinians cannot simply solve the Israel Problem by creating a “Palestinian Democracy” in Israel. Jews would still control it because they own the vote. Not to mention the great share of the wealth. Palestine supporters like the self-immolating fellow were very clear on their position that violence is 100% justified against the ‘settler colonialist’ Israelis, even if those people lived there their entire life and have never touched a weapon.

What’s going on in Ukraine is probably more functionally genocidal than anything going on in Israel and Palestine, which makes me extremely sad to talk about. Ukraine has well-below-replacement birthrates and is getting utterly mangled. Young men are dying en masse. Young women are fleeing to the west and possibly not returning. The Ukrainian nation is in dire straits. Russians aren’t exactly flourishing either. Despite western focus on Russian ‘war crimes’, the west does not as often label this a genocide because it would imply that genocides can happen through a people group being sabotaged into not reproducing itself, rather than just through flashy shows of bombs and gas chambers and pedal-powered brain bashing machines (this is the sort of ridiculous stuff which was talked about at Nuremburg!).

But back to the IP topic, what I hate most about this war is that denial of the truth. Can’t both sides just admit they want nothing more than to kill each other correctly? Instead of crying crocodile tears? They never will. Because America decided every world conflict halfway across the world has to be watched over by us. Because America decided that winning the war wasn’t enough. Because Jews, some of the same Jews who went on to form Israel, couldn’t stop kvetching about things the Germans did to them which were no more morally bankrupt (from the German perspective) than the things they did to their goyische enemies in the Torah.

What’s worse, is what this implies for indigenous movements in western countries. Shitlibs are notoriously evasive when you ask them what they mean by “Land Back”. Does this mean deportation of all European-Americans back to Europe, and of all African-Americans back to Africa? Or are only Europeans allowed to be treated like shit for introducing the wheel to your ancestors? I’ve met a few who actually said yes to this, and all I said in response was “then speak up”, because this is exactly what I want other white people to hear. Again, your enemies are a force of nature. You aren’t entitled to their compassion, so all you can really do is reveal to your friends and kinsmen that your enemies seek their demise. But, most of them will pick at their shirt collar and suggest a softer approach which involves recognizing this land as indigenous and giving indigenous people a sort of special sovereignty over it. At this point you have to ask them how this is anything but an anti-democratic ethnocracy, and at this point they usually just stop responding. Because if they move the goalposts any further they’ll just reveal that they don’t actually believe in Land Back and just believe in LARPing, when all they really would want is the sort of stupid “recognitions of Native land” we have today.

I would say what we did to the Native Americans was about equivalent to what the Bantus did to the Pygmies, or what the Neolithic Farmers did to the Hunter Gatherers. It was mostly an out-peopling event. White people were more technologically advanced and bred faster, and were better at a lot of things. And more resistant to certain deadly Eurasian diseases, of course. But, looking at the remnants of Native Americans today, I can’t help but wonder if we should have even let them have those reservations. Some of the Indian tribes were just, coally. Just utter coal! BRIMSTONE!!!! Clan mothers? Longhouses? BRVH… But some, were quite kewl. Ehh, I like Plains Indians. They were a bit wicked at times, but they have good qualities like other Steppe peoples. Did you know that they used to be the tallest people on earth?