Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 01:27 | #

GW, this is a diamond that has fallen into our lap.  All the right words are there.  All the right concepts are there.

Posted by zusammen on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 01:51 | #

UN General Assembly was to have adopted this declaration on September 13th, 2007.

UN Human Rights Council adopted this declaration on June 29, 2006.

Several months ago, the implications for European people relying on this declaration was debated at a certain free speech forum. At least one party in the debate, aside from myself, participates in discussions here.

We must bear in mind that the world has its attention fixed primarily on the rights of indigenous people in the Americas, in Africa and in other parts of the world like Tibet. Suggesting that Europeans, who are the most pronounced violators of this declaration, are also an indigenous people whos rights are in danger is going to create considerable controversy.

The common white person is not at fault. The Inner Party is to blame for sticking it to all of us.

Posted by Red Baron on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:17 | #

> United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples … and that means us, doesn’t it?

No, it doesn’t

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:54 | #

First of all, any so-called “standard” is going to be given a double standard during “international dialog”.  There is no moral or ethical integrity when it comes to such “dialog”.

Secondly, by far the best status from a moral and ethical standard is not as “indigenous” but as “carrying capacity creators”.  This also happens to be by far the best standard for Euroman’s interests.

Thirdly, if we are going to protect hunter-gatherer populations, which I think is a worthy goal, we should do so within a framework that protects progressively more natural heritage so that man can bifurcate between sustainable terrestrial and expansive solar lineages.  Euroman would, of course, continue his ancient heritage of pioneering new vistas of habitat and genetic mutation.

Posted by 2R on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 05:17 | #

There is no question that this can apply to Europeans, but can North Americans use this?

Posted by Riley DeWiley on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:23 | #

“There is no question that this can apply to Europeans, but can North Americans use this?”

Good question.

How is “indigenous people” defined?

Riley

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:51 | #

“can North Americans use this?”

Of course.  See the use of “our posterity” in the founding documents of the Second Republic (the Constitution) and other similar language among the early docments, and see the language of the legislators who passed the 1924 immigration law.  All of that is precedent.

Posted by position77 on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:06 | #

Not a word of this declaration applies to white people of Europe.  No German in Germany may say that we indigenous people of Germany have the right to keep our German homeland to ourselves, and do not want to be integrated into a europe-wide or planet-wide slop-pail;  and we do not want non-europeans integrated into our indigenous homeland ....
How dare the Vlaams Belang say that they do not want to be assimilated with the French ! ...
How dare Le Pen say that France should belong to the French and not turned into a slop-pail !...

As the UN declaration of human right (and charters of right generally) takes away the rights of the individual, this one takes away the rights of the nation

There should be a declaration that the United Nations and all those indigenous people stay away from white people’s tax-money

Posted by gongstar on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:44 | #

You don’t need me to draw the picture for you.

I do.

Our efforts against the replacers and their useful idiots will only be strengthened by this.

I hope you’re joking. I fear you’re not.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:56 | #

Look, Gongstar, there’s no foundation in international law for excluding Europeans as an indigenous people.  Therefore, Europe’s children are covered by the draft declaration.  The issue is the legal interpretation of the case Europeans can mount (I am not, for the moment, considering Europeans outside Europe).

So, under Article 8:2a we read “States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for ... Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities.”  Now, what is the legal interpretation of “Any action”?  Does open-ended immigration, with a predicted switch to minority status, carry implications for our “integrity as distinct peoples”?

You and I are both English.  Well, do you really think the rise of post-devolution English nationalism won’t be met with efforts to redefine Africans and Asians as English by birth?  But the draft declaration states that any action which has the aim or effect of depriving the indigenous English of our ethnic identity must be prevented or redressed.

No, this is useful - however the UN sophists try to twist it.

Posted by Proofreader on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:33 | #

Now they´ll say that it only applies to exotic native minorities like Lapps in Europe. Nope. Not to indigenous Europeans. After all, we´ve only been around here since forever, and that doesn´t count.
Jews and Gypsies will qualify. Wait and see.
But we do have the grounds for a legal battle, worth fighting to raise awareness even if predictably we will lose it in Strassburg.

Posted by Jun on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:15 | #

Very interesting.  Thanks, guessedworker!

On the definition of ‘indigenous peoples’—from the resolution…

Article 33

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or
membership in accordance with their customs and traditions. This does not impair
the right of indigenous individuals to obtain citizenship of the States in which they
live.

2. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the structures and to
select the membership of their institutions in accordance with their own procedures.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:37 | #

While we are doing the international Convention thing, let us not forget this helpful little number:-

United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

<u>Article 2</u>

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Posted by Rusty on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:43 | #

I’m sure the UN is going to change now and protect Whites instead of targeting them for rape, plunder, and eventual extinction.  This resolution changes everything.  Thank god for the UN.

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 01:01 | #

Rusty is right to be cynical about that bunch of Third World barbarians who dominate the UN.  A trustworthy lawyer and former Naval Commander of my acquaintance recently completed a tour of UN duty in Sri Lanka, working mainly among the Tamils in the north of the island. He reported to his superiors claims of rape by UN personnel from the Third World and was told to keep quiet or he would be discredited and would not be selected for UN missions in the future. He then informed the UN’s New York office but the female in charge of his area refused to countenance any official investigation.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 01:06 | #

“No, this is useful”  (—GW)

Useful?  This is nothing short of seismic.  It’s one of the most earthshaking things ever published at MajorityRights.com. 

Useful?  Volcanic is more like it. 

It’s almost enough to bring off a counterrevolution single-handed, all by itself. 

Stuff like this has to make the other side quake in their boots.

We’re gaining.  And we shall prevail.

We as a race, or as a collection of European races, are not going to be replaced.

Let the other side start getting used to that.

Posted by Tommy G on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:14 | #

As I interpret it, the Declaration is intended to protect non-White indigenous peoples living in predominantly White countries…countries such as Australia, USA, and Canada. Those countries are the most obvious targets of the Declaration.

Just about everything that spews forth from the UN is anti Western culture; therefore, anti-White. Why would this UN Declaration be any different?

I would never, ever, trust the inept UN to provide protection for Whites in any way. They didn’t even provide protection for the Tutsi tribe during Rwanda’s 1992 genocide! Nor are they protecting the Black Christians in the Darfur region of Sudan. The UN is practically useless!

Posted by Red Baron on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:31 | #

The idea the UN - an institution constructed upon deceit -  one whose entire history can been can be seen as an attack on European interests in favor of African baboonery or communist subversives is entirely laughable.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:37 | #

Tommy G and the Red Baron are right about the U.N. not being likely any time soon (soon meaning in the next hundred trillion years) to defend whites against genocide.  That’s not the point.  The point is precisely if whites don’t take the initiative and use what materials are available to defend themselves no one’s going to do it for them, and here are the perfect materials whites can use just lying on the ground like gold nuggets waiting for someone to bend over, pick up, and put to use.  Did Jews get where they are by waiting for someone else to come along and do stuff for them?  Uhhh ... I could be wrong but ... I kinda don’t think so, guys ...

Posted by Bill on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 07:58 | #

Off topic

To those who may have missed it, there is a superb thread going down at Auster’s View from the Right, it is under the heading…

’ Do liberals think they won’t be harmed by national suicide?’

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:51 | #

“Did Jews get where they are by waiting for someone else to come along and do stuff for them?”

Where exactly are “the Jews” (I am assuming you are referring to some kind of mysterious and monolithic cabal)?

Constantin

Posted by Lurker (Mk II) on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 12:44 | #

C von H—the new John Jay Ray. Narcissistic, tedious provocateur.

Dump him.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:10 | #

Where exactly are “the Jews”

They are benefiting from all the vehicles of their ethnic interest we know so well, and which I have described very sketchily here.

Look, Constantin, you can only pull this simplistic anti-WN stuff once at MR.  Since we are not a WN site, you will very quickly be corrected, and you have been.  Accept the correction and move your focus accordingly.  This is becoming very tedious.

Posted by gongstar on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:45 | #

No, this is useful - however the UN sophists try to twist it.

It might be useful as propaganda, but the English are not an indigenous people and are not covered by the declaration: they are vile racist oppressors who are, quite rightly, having their ill-gotten gains reclaimed by their saintly ethnic victims. Under Marxism, a declaration of rights is about as sincere as a : see Animal Farm.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:48 | #

I’ll take the propaganda.  I never expected legal redress.

Posted by zusammen on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:55 | #

It might be useful as propaganda,

Any response has value. No response also has propaganda value. Distribution is needed to increase dormant Euroman’s awareness of his threatened interests. The existing non-response toward all indigenous interests at this time is very telling.

but the English are not an indigenous people and are not covered by the declaration: they are vile racist oppressors who are, quite rightly, having their ill-gotten gains reclaimed by their saintly ethnic victims

The individual English commoner never had the clout and influence to colonize the planet. Central banking cartels like those long stationed in London certainly have. Now there’s propaganda for the non-Euroman perspective.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 02:46 | #

C von H—the new John Jay Ray. Narcissistic, tedious provocateur.

Dump him.

No need to insult JJR (I write that advisedly).

Posted by Slavyanski on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:13 | #

It is your capitalists rulers, and not some shadowy Jew cabal, that decides your rights in this case do not apply.  They want the cheap labor, so they make the decision, and that’s the way the world works.  Do something about them, and maybe you’ll have a chance, but it means…god forbid…working with people of other races!!!  Oh no!

Posted by zusammen on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:37 | #

It is your capitalists rulers, and not some shadowy Jew cabal, that decides your rights in this case do not apply.

The position taken is that a shadowy Jew cabal are the capitalist rulers.

They want the cheap labor, so they make the decision, and that’s the way the world works.

Primacy of the individual is undermining effective dissent. So far, it is only native Westerners that are accustomed to individualism + liberty + wealth, making them easy fattened, softened prey for hungry organized outsiders.

Do something about them, and maybe you’ll have a chance, but it means…god forbid…working with people of other races!!!  Oh no!

The other races are very easily manipulated into directing their collective aggressive discontent against the average white person who has nothing whatsoever to do with their plight.

Posted by Tommy G on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:36 | #

“I’ll take the propaganda.  I never expected legal redress.”—GW

Just exactly how, for example, are indigenous English going to use Article 8 as a propaganda tool to protect themselves? If it is used as an argument against current immigration policies ... policies that are certainly going to eventually result in the reduction of indigenous English to a minority status, all our opponents have to is argue is that: The indigenous English are currently the majority; therefore, have the power to elect and control their own form government. They’ ll go on to say: If the English don’t like the immigration policies of their own government, they should just elect a new set of leaders!

On the other hand, the opponents will argue: Indigenous Aborigines in Australia are a minority and have no political power, so they need to be protected by an international body, i.e. the UN.

Fast forward:

If, say, the indigenous English ever do become a minority within their country, then it will be too late to use Article 8 as an effective propaganda tool. Why? Because no non-White majority will even consider abiding by THAT particular international law.

What non-White country TODAY is likely to abide by any of the stipulations in Article 8, China? Not according to the Tibetan monks! Israel? Not according to the Palestinians; nor will any Christian group in countries taken over by force from Islam be protected….

Only White Westernized nations have it in their culture and nature to respect and protect human rights. That said, Whites had better learn real quick to start respecting and defending their OWN human rights before they’re overwhelmed by the barbarians—both from within and without.

Most non-Western cultures view the following UN outline as foolish liberal idealism. Non-white indigenous populations living WITHIN white nations will use it to exploit the majority white population. Whites are too hamstrung with political correctness to do anything about it.

————

1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to
forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.

2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress
for:

(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their
integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;

(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their
lands, territories or resources;

(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of
violating or undermining any of their rights;

(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;

(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic
discrimination directed against them

Posted by Slavyanski on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 18:28 | #

“The position taken is that a shadowy Jew cabal are the capitalist rulers.”

Well that position is simply wrong, period.

“Primacy of the individual is undermining effective dissent. So far, it is only native Westerners that are accustomed to individualism + liberty + wealth, making them easy fattened, softened prey for hungry organized outsiders.”

According to whom?  One could say the same about the immigrants, especially those who might actually have some work in their own country.  It is strange that on this board, Communism gets dinged for “collectivism”, while individualism is simultaneously condemned.

“The other races are very easily manipulated into directing their collective aggressive discontent against the average white person who has nothing whatsoever to do with their plight. “

Only the other races?  Then how do these anti-Semites explain whites not doing what they want?

Posted by Tommy G on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 19:27 | #

“Just exactly how, for example, are indigenous English going to use Article 8 as a propaganda tool to protect themselves? If it is used as an argument against current immigration policies ... policies that are certainly going to eventually result in the reduction of indigenous English to a minority status, all our opponents have to is argue is that: The indigenous English are currently the majority; therefore, have the power to elect and control their own form government. They’ ll go on to say: If the English don’t like the immigration policies of their own government, they should just elect a new set of leaders!”

Allow me to rephrase that so it makes sense.

How can article 8 be used as a propaganda tool that benefits the indigenous English?
If it is used as an argument against non-White immigration policies, our opponents will argue: The indigenous English are currently the majority; therefore, they have the power to elect and control their own form of government. If the English don’t agree with the current immigration polices, they should elect new leaders.

Posted by zusammen on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:00 | #

It is strange that on this board, Communism gets dinged for “collectivism”, while individualism is simultaneously condemned.

The habitual binary thinking is just stupid. Extreme collectivism and extreme individualism are each undesirable goals.

Only the other races?  Then how do these anti-Semites explain whites not doing what they want?

I already explained extreme individualism + unchecked liberty + excessive wealth.

I just want to add that drunk drivers or kids on skateboards are more a problem than “anti-semites” whatever that means this week.

Posted by gongstar on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:03 | #

“The position taken is that a shadowy Jew cabal are the capitalist rulers.”

Well that position is simply wrong, period.

Whew. I wish I would win arguments as quickly and easily as that.

“The other races are very easily manipulated into directing their collective aggressive discontent against the average white person who has nothing whatsoever to do with their plight. “

Only the other races?  Then how do these anti-Semites explain whites not doing what they want?

It’s long past time there was some kind of big electronically based library where one could go to answer queries like that by typing a few important phrases into a computer terminal. The technology’s there: why aren’t we using it? Maybe we could call it the the ElectroLib or the InterNexus or something like that.

Posted by Slavyanski on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:13 | #

I just want to add that drunk drivers or kids on skateboards are more a problem than “anti-semites” whatever that means this week.

Did anyone ever imply otherwise?  The fact is that no country, besides Israel, is run by Jews.  The majority of capitalist owners in any given country are in fact from that country, if we are talking about the major economic players.

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 05:15 | #

The majority, no, sorry, the entirety of Russia’s oligarchy, is, like its Mafia, not Russian at all. They are racially alien Klepto-Kikes.

Posted by Matra on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 06:57 | #

The fact is that no country, besides Israel, is run by Jews.

Ever heard of the USA?

Since CvH became a poster this site has started to remind me of Guardian Unlimited or some other leftist/neocon website where everybody argues about things that I thought MR readers were decades beyond. If we are going to have to explain the very basics of the JQ or the existence of race every single day then why bother coming to this site in the first place? The last couple of weeks have been an absolute bore.

Posted by Slavyanski on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:29 | #

Sorry people, neither Russia, nor the USA are “run by Jews”.  The current oligarchy in Russia is Russian, as well as some Caucasians.  The mafia is mostly Caucasian but they also have plenty of Slavic Russians in their service as well.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 10:08 | #

Slavy,

Can you develop your thinking, which is somewhat black/white and “label-heavy”, beyond the two stark options of the phrase “run by”, ie a country is run by Jews <> a country is not run by Jews?  Degrees and areas of influence are surely admissable.  For example, is the US more influenced by Jews than Iceland?  Is US foreign policy more influenced by Jews than its energy policy?

The question of what actually constitutes control needs also to be examined.  For instance, in US foreign policy, what are the highest values?  In what causes or combination of causes does the US government go to war?  The preservation of American lives and security?  National economic interests?  Geopolitics, power and prestige?  Israel?  American corporate and banking interests?

One would have to conclude that different American wars have different orders of interests.  Kosovo was fought for different reasons, a different order of interests from Iraq.  War with Iran would be for different reasons again.

Surely, within these orders of interests are Jewish interests, and sometimes they are very high in the list, and perhaps at the top.

Very generally, I find your thinking, like Constantin’s, to be given rather too gauchely to the declaration of some supposed revolutionary truth.  This is indicative of somebody who is trying to bend life and the world to his own ideology.  It is very reminiscent of the Marxist Old Left, but in Western governmental terms that game is finished as I have said.  The Marxist New Left did much, much better in terms of changing our lives to their agenda - and their lead thinking is, sans Gramsci, Foucault and Habermas, is “guess what” and very subtle.

Posted by gongstar on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 14:18 | #

Sorry people, neither Russia, nor the USA are “run by Jews”.

I think I’m beginning to see how it works. One sees, one states, one conquers.

The current oligarchy in Russia is Russian, as well as some Caucasians.  The mafia is mostly Caucasian but they also have plenty of Slavic Russians in their service as well.

Interesting that you say “current”. And what about the US?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:04 | #

Gongstar, there are still plenty of Jews running things in Russia and (surprise, surprise!  who would’ve guessed?) pushing race-replacement of ethnic Russians there and pushing it hard!  If the Danish retard Scolex, the Swedish witch, and Patria would let me on GDV just to read the thing (they’ve IP-banned me from even coming on to read the site) I could hunt up plenty of testimony in this regard posted by a group of Russian nationalists a couple of years ago.  But I can’t get on the site.

Posted by Slavyanski on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:10 | #

“Can you develop your thinking, which is somewhat black/white and “label-heavy”, beyond the two stark options of the phrase “run by”, ie a country is run by Jews <> a country is not run by Jews?  Degrees and areas of influence are surely admissable.  For example, is the US more influenced by Jews than Iceland?  Is US foreign policy more influenced by Jews than its energy policy?”

Since you people like to attribute controlling or origin roles to Jews merely by stating their presence in certain movements, you can forgive me for making some kind of assumption here.

“The question of what actually constitutes control needs also to be examined.  For instance, in US foreign policy, what are the highest values?  In what causes or combination of causes does the US government go to war?  The preservation of American lives and security?  National economic interests?  Geopolitics, power and prestige?  Israel?  American corporate and banking interests?”

Israel is strategically valuable to US imperialism, because of its location, because of its ethnic make-up. 

“One would have to conclude that different American wars have different orders of interests.  Kosovo was fought for different reasons, a different order of interests from Iraq.  War with Iran would be for different reasons again.”

All these wars were fought with US economic interests in mind, though specific reasons differ. 

“Surely, within these orders of interests are Jewish interests, and sometimes they are very high in the list, and perhaps at the top.”

The US embarks on this path because it is good for the US ruling class. Israel’s interests happen to coincide with those.

Posted by Slavyanski on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:14 | #

“Gongstar, there are still plenty of Jews running things in Russia and (surprise, surprise!  who would’ve guessed?) pushing race-replacement of ethnic Russians there and pushing it hard! “

Proof please!  Do you want to know what is pushing “race replacement”?  Maybe it has something to do with the fact that:

1. Wealth is mostly concentrated in Moscow and St. Petersburg.

2. Life in Moscow is extremely difficult for most people.

3. Most Russian males are trying to avoid army service.

4. Social services suck.

5. There is overcrowding.

6. Former Soviet republics no longer have the aid and infrastructure they used to, and have huge unemployment.

7. These immigrants provide a source of cheap labor.

8. The government pays bonuses for children but this is woefully inadequate given the living conditions here. 

” If the Danish retard Scolex, the Swedish witch, and Patria would let me on GDV just to read the thing (they’ve IP-banned me from even coming on to read the site) I could hunt up plenty of testimony in this regard posted by a group of Russian nationalists a couple of years ago.  But I can’t get on the site.”

Oh yeah, Russian nationalists, there’s a level-headed bunch of people.  Some of those “nationalists” believe that as much as 80% of ethnic Russians are too “racially-mixed” to be useful.

Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:18 | #

It is strange that on this board, Communism gets dinged for “collectivism”....

I don’t believe that “critique” is offered here.  You are more likely to find a critique that states that Marxism, in both theory and practice, is an ideology of hyperindividualism.  Each person is encouraged to look at his narrow personal economic interest and join together with similarly situated “class” members.  Class divisions can be continually redefined to create perpetual class conflict, with each person, in each instance, asked to consider only his personal economic interest. 

The good of the community as a whole is completely disregarded.  It is the ultimate war of all against all, to be mediated by a Jewish ruling class that is unassailable because of its unity in contrast with the atomization of its subjects.

Posted by Slavyanski on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:31 | #

“I don’t believe that “critique” is offered here.  You are more likely to find a critique that states that Marxism, in both theory and practice, is an ideology of hyperindividualism.  Each person is encouraged to look at his narrow personal economic interest and join together with similarly situated “class” members.  Class divisions can be continually redefined to create perpetual class conflict, with each person, in each instance, asked to consider only his personal economic interest.

The good of the community as a whole is completely disregarded.  It is the ultimate war of all against all, to be mediated by a Jewish ruling class that is unassailable because of its unity in contrast with the atomization of its subjects. “

Huh?  Again, offer evidence to support your Jewish ruling class claim.  If it was aimed at creating a Jewish ruling class, if failed miserably. 

People have a right to be concerned with economic interests, especially today.  Why were the masses wrong for being concerned about their economic interests, while the kulaks, rulers, and capitalists weren’t?

Posted by gongstar on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:51 | #

Gongstar, there are still plenty of Jews running things in Russia and (surprise, surprise!  who would’ve guessed?) pushing race-replacement of ethnic Russians there and pushing it hard!

Fred, I can well believe it. But the Jews don’t have as much power there as they’d like, or Putin wouldn’t be being demonized by neocons the way he is.

Posted by Slavyanski on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:01 | #

Yeah, don’t listen to the guy who actually lives in Russia.  What would I know?

Posted by Astrid on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 23:47 | #

I’ve been reading MR for almost a year now, but have never felt equal to commenting. I am awed by the intelligence and knowledge of some of the commenters. Although I am and always have been a natural racialist (I always wanted children like myself, blonde and blue or green eyed), I was disinterested in history and politics for most of my life. (So would I still be if I did not see my race being screwed to extinction.)

But I do know useless, trouble-making, destructive screwers when I read them. Constantin and slayvansky are such. Discussion cannot advance if it is constantly being drawn back to square one. This is what these sabateurs do. It is all they can do because they are not really very intelligent. It is what they want to do because they are not really very intelligent and they hate that. Where I, as a female, am awed, they, as rival males, are competitive. And if one can’t compete legitimately, it’s legitimate to compete illegitimately. All’s fair etc. And whilst I admire GW’s patience with Cv, what did Cv ever do to deserve this? I say, dump the trouble makers. I know more than one person who isn’t really smart so rather steals the scene by being contrary. They never, never, never change.

I agree with Fred Scrooby, as I nearly always do, that this declaration, or whatever it is, is something that could be potentially used. Not to wait and see if they mean us too (are we that pathetic?), but rather to fight with it, to TAKE IT FOR GRANTED that we too are indigenous. To somewhere for god’s sake. What did we do, evolve on the high seas?

Astrid

Posted by iCare on Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:00 | #

Nothing good can come of the UN.

Nothing good can come of the UN.

Nothing good can come of the UN.

Rinse; repeat.

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:06 | #

This is a useful tool in Europe vis a vis immigration but, as has been said , where does that leave us in N.America, Oz, NZ & SA? Not to mention places in S.America.

Posted by zusammen on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 04:03 | #

European-Americas will have to take a seccessionist route. If non-white tribes can claim indigenous rights, British and continental Europeans can do so as well. Take note that some amnesty international website domains have European suffixes. These European-administrated websites are dedicated to non-European genetic interests.

amnesty dot at (Austria)
amnesty dot ca (Canada)
amnesty dot fr (France)

There are many, many more. It might not hurt to examine their arguments, methods and goals.

Posted by Tommy G on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 04:17 | #

Article 8, and all that it outlines is useless to whites—for propaganda purposes—in countries that have an indigenous population that comprise the majority.

Posted by Tommy G on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 04:23 | #

Correction:

Article 8, and all that it outlines is useless to whites—for propaganda purposes—in countries that comprise whites as the majority indigenous population.

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:11 | #

I’m with Astrid.

Buck up, Tommy.

Posted by Tommy G on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:43 | #

“I’m with Astrid.

Buck up, Tommy. ”—ben tillman

Are you saying my posts are in agreement with the philosophy held by Slavy and CvH, or just saying I’m not on par with the discussion?

I said: Article 8, and all that it outlines is useless to whites—for propaganda purposes—in countries that comprise whites as the majority indigenous population.

Why do you disagree with me on that? Where is the flaw in my logic?

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 07:59 | #

Much as it probably engenders a sense of nostalgia, the contribution of Marxism’s designated hysteric is unworthy of this blog.

Go and sell Crazy somewhere else.

Posted by Slavyanski on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:06 | #

I cannot harp enough on the irony of how everyone here refers to me as mentally ill, psychotic, having complexes,hysterical, etc.  I would say it’s some kind of projection given the kind of reaction you get from 99% of the population including whites.  Think about it some time.  You imagine there is some kind of Jewish conspiracy to destroy your race; but I’m the crazy one.  Interesting.

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:41 | #

Slavyanski - its kind of funny youve ended up travelling east as youve travelled to the left. I quite often meet Poles at work and they really dont like commies, but what would they know, they only grew up under communism. Maybe they are atypical of former communist citizens.

Posted by Rusty on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:12 | #

To you who are trying to reason with Slavyanski: Could you please come over and help me teach my pig to sing, too?  You seem to have the requisite patience and optimism.

Posted by Rusty on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:18 | #

The UN can never be good for Whites, unless Whites control the whole thing.  Whites should not have to share sovereignty with non-Whites, period.  What sense does it make to let Africans, Asians, Semites, Mexicans, etc., make laws for Whites?  None.

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:54 | #

Tommy:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/46/messages/1086.html

Don’ty concede defeat.  Why can’t this have propaganda value?

Posted by Tommy G on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:11 | #

“Why can’t this have propaganda value?”—ben tillman

Because it can easily be made invalid. As I tried to explain in my clumsily worded comments earlier on this thread, I said:

If it [Article 8] is used as an argument against non-White immigration policies, our opponents will argue: The indigenous English are currently the majority; therefore, they have the power to elect and control their own form of government. If the English don’t agree with the current immigration polices, they should elect new leaders.

On the other hand, the opponents will argue: Indigenous Aborigines in Australia are a minority and have no political power, so they need to be protected by an international body, i.e. the UN.

Fast forward into the future:

If, say, the indigenous English ever do become a minority within their country, then it will be too late to use Article 8 as an effective propaganda tool. Why? Because no non-White majority will even consider abiding by THAT particular international law…

Ben, if you see any practical propaganda value in it, please let me know what it is and how we can use it. In other words: what am I missing?

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:58 | #

If it [Article 8] is used as an argument against non-White immigration policies, our opponents will argue: The indigenous English are currently the majority; therefore, they have the power to elect and control their own form of government.

But we won’t be directing propaganda at our opponents; we’ll be directing it at our fellow whites.  And quite obviously we don’t have the power to elect and control our own government.

Posted by Tommy G on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:47 | #

“But we won’t be directing propaganda at our opponents; we’ll be directing it at our fellow whites.”

Most of our opponents ARE white. Not only are they white, they are the class of whites that occupy the middle to upper rungs of socioeconomic status. I doubt using Article 8 as a propaganda tool will have any affect on changing their jealously guarded ‘diversity is our strength’ mindset.  Most whites are too self-satisfied with their ‘enlightened-liberal-anti-racist’ worldview to change. Their worship of diversity is so ingrained in their thought patterns that only a cataclysmic economic downturn (or some other horrible catastrophe) will place their mental condition in a place where they MIGHT be susceptible to a race-realist worldview.

http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/print/the_destructive_class/

“And quite obviously we don’t have the power to elect and control our own government.”

I couldn’t AGREE more with that statement!

Posted by danielj on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 23:46 | #

Tommy has pointed out something that I have been mulling over a lot lately.

White people are the enemy.

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:00 | #

Most of our opponents ARE white.

I don’t see it that way.  Neither do you, as is demonstrated by the fact that you see our opponents referring to whites in the third person. 

Not only are they white, they are the class of whites that occupy the middle to upper rungs of socioeconomic status. I doubt using Article 8 as a propaganda tool will have any affect on changing their jealously guarded ‘diversity is our strength’ mindset.

I’ve only met one white person ever who expressed a belief in that mantra.

Posted by Astrid on Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:48 | #

2 scenerios:

1. “We’re indigenous!  Man, we are indigenous!”
“Wait a minute. you are not indigenous…’
“Man, we are indigenous! WE ARE INDIGENOUS! WE ARE…”
“Stop it! You are not indigenous! You are white!”
“WE ARE INDIGENOUS AND WE WANT ALL THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS…”
“STOP IT!”
“PEOPLES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. WE ARE INDIGENOUS! WE ARE INDIGENOUS AND WE WANT…etc! repeat 10,000,000 times.

2. “We’re indigenous. I hope.”
“No you’re not.”
“Oh. Sorry. Thought we were.”
“You’re not.”
“Shit. Sorry. Guess we didn’t do the math right. Or consider the length of time in centuries, excuse me, in millenia, or maybe is it eons, as well as the question of the degree of necessary pigmentation… Oh well, we’ll think of something else.”

“”“I cannot harp enough on the irony of how everyone here refers to me as mentally ill, psychotic, having complexes,hysterical, etc.  I would say it’s some kind of projection given the kind of reaction you get from 99% of the population including whites.  Think about it some time.  You imagine there is some kind of Jewish conspiracy to destroy your race; but I’m the crazy one.  Interesting.”“”“

Slayv, you are just a boring mediocre troll who wants to be a star. Whatever complexes you have are of interest only to yourself and your confessor.

Why are these trolls so often able to sabotage discussions, so that brainstorming on the topic is limited and time and effort are instead spent on them?  It’s not a healthy thing.

Astrid

Posted by Tommy G on Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:03 | #

“Tommy has pointed out something that I have been mulling over a lot lately.

White people are the enemy.”—danielj

danielj, did you read the link I provided in my post? I think you’ll find it compatible with your recent ruminations.

http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/print/the_destructive_class/

Posted by Slavyanski on Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:35 | #

“Slavyanski - its kind of funny youve ended up travelling east as youve travelled to the left. I quite often meet Poles at work and they really dont like commies, but what would they know, they only grew up under communism. Maybe they are atypical of former communist citizens.”

Poland has its own identity problems, and has had them for decades.  Poland went revisionist very early, from the time of Gomulka.  They left agriculture mainly in private hands, and this created serious problems.  Even still, during that time Poles had jobs, whereas today Poland’s biggest export seems to be Polish people- as cheap labor and….that’s right folks- PROSTITUTES.  Polska zginela is seems.  almost 20 years of “freedom”, and Poles, despite all the investment in Poland, can’t seem to stand their “free country”.  Funny.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:54 | #

Yet another Jew — an extremely important Jew — trying to force race-replacement on a European population — an extremely important European population.

You can be sure, folks, that two populations this particular Jew will never try to force race-replacement on are ... (wait for it ... you’ll never guess this one ...) ... OK I’d better tell you the answer because you’ll never get it in a million years:  Israel and the Jewish diaspora.  (Yes I can hear all those gasps of incredulity but it’s true!)

You see, Jews carry a brazenness gene along with their nation-destroying gene.

Can anyone believe the reaction of this Jew, this foul moral leper who is supposed to be a philosopher, to such a feeble, woefully late, utterly inadequate effort on the part of dying France to save itself?  Imagine how this Jew would react to effective efforts!  We all know how he would react:  with Jewish hysteria, as if life for France spelled death for Jews.  For that’s how too many Jews see things and that right there is the central intolerable Jewish trait:  their unshakable inner conviction that racial destruction of Euros is “Good For The Jews” and necessary. 

A message to the Jewish community: 

We of European race reject and hate with the most intense hatred possible the neverending efforts by Jews to eliminate our race and our collection of races through the demographic weapon, a weapon ultimately as deadly as bullets.  We demand the Jews as a body make a collective decision at some official communal level that this intolerable behavior by them be condemned, discouraged, and stopped.  The Jews are attempting to commit genocide.  We see no official Jewish condemnation of this.  We demand that that change. 

The Jews hounded the Catholic Church until it officially renounced “its anti-Semitism.”  We demand the Jews officially renounce their anti-Euroism and their continual demonic efforts to bring about the demographic genocide of the European races.

Posted by Slavyanski on Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:01 | #

Fred, my dear nutcase, what about the far greater number of “Aryans” who push for open immigration? In fact it is because of them that it happens in the first place.  Could it ever dawn on you that perhaps “your people” aren’t actually inherently noble, that they aren’t “duped” by anything, and that in reality they are just carrying out the interests of their class?  Is that even possible? Or does everything have to be a comic book fantasy?

Posted by Tommy G on Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:23 | #

Can anyone believe the reaction of this Jew, this foul moral leper who is supposed to be a philosopher, to such a feeble, woefully late, utterly inadequate effort on the part of dying France to save itself?”—Fred Scrooby

Nothing those anti-Euro-Christian Jews say surprise me anymore.

But I’m starting to like Sarkozy. This is a fantastic quote by Sarkozy I read a while ago:

“France needs a new kind of immigrant — one who is “selected, not endured.”

Everyone, everyday, should repeat that!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:20 | #

A couple of items gleaned around the net:

1) Excellent speech by Arthur Kemp.

2) The Jews did this (see the first of the two graphs).  They did it in 1965.  This country was good to them.  It gave them a good, safe home and the opportunity for a good, prosperous, happy, fulfilled life.  Doing this (see the graph) — killing it, murdering the United States — was how they repaid its goodness toward the Jews.  This country was nice to them, showed them great kindness, was good to them.  And so they planted a knife in its back in 1965 and murdered it.  The Jews have an odd way of saying thank you.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:44 | #

Race Replacement.  Don’t leave home without it.

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:59 | #

The indigenous folk of my native Scotland are attacked, yet again, by the MSM in the anti-White agitprop piece, “Racism Is Alive And Unwell In Scotland”.

For the moment, at least, we can comment on this offensive rubbish :

http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.1758645.0.0.php

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 14 Oct 2007 04:40 | #

That article nearly made me vomit, Al.  Luckily the letters at the bottom raised my spirits afterward ... as did this (while we’re speaking of Scotland) which I stumbled across just a little earlier today:  the most brilliant, exquisite, riveting pairs figure skating by Scots brother and sister team, Sinead and John Kerr — dazzling performance by these Scots (for full effect, wait till the Russian guy stops talking and the sublime music starts)!  I must’ve watched it a dozen times already.

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 14 Oct 2007 04:57 | #

Yes, Fred, the MSM are so often out of touch with reality. Thank you for the Jim Kalb link which my alter ego employed.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Oct 2007 04:46 | #

At National Geographic they’re worried about dialects and languages dying out (as well they should be). 

Races?  Never heard of ‘em. 

Races and sub-races in danger of actually dying out?  European ones?  In danger of dying out through deliberately engineered birth-rate collapse coupled with government-mandated replacement volumes of racially incompatible immigration forced down their throats without let-up? 

No, we at National Geographic never heard of any of that stuff, just languages and dialects.  That’s all we’re concerned about.  And we don’t like racists.  So, be on your way.

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:00 | #

It looks like the US Government wants a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Capitalism in the face of non-White immigration of State Capitalism.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article2658402.ece

While the concerns of ordinary Americans over a huge foreign influx are routinely promoted as ‘racist’, those of the US-based international capitalists who wish to keep foreigner participants out are heeded immediately.