|
|
|
Some thoughts on a journey to The Hague A recurring subject within nationalism is the possibility of bringing a case for the genocide of peoples of European descent by coercive replacement before the International Criminal Court. The attractions of doing so are very great. If it were to be successful even in relation to one of our peoples, governments in the West would be forced to develop demographic policies incorporating protective measures for all, or face legal challenge themselves. Not only would new immigration without thought for the security of our existence have to come to an end, but the population mechanics of generational replacement would have to be addressed. And for that, large-scale programmes of repatriation would have to be instituted. Further, the post-colonial economic model of the West, built on debt payable out of growth in GDP consequent upon population increase, would have to be substantially amended. The debt model itself would be open to question in a new way, and the lineaments of a new and free life for European men and women might be glimpsed. Even if European governments contrived to win the judgement, the demographic crisis of the West will have been aired in the most public and intellectually respectable way, challenging the great embargo on speaking racially. Political correctness, anti-racism, and the legal war on discrimination will, for the first time, have been accurately cast as strategies of coercion. The nationalist worldview will have slipped its bonds. The gateway to free speech and participation in public discourse will stand open. That is the theory, anyway. Unsurprisingly, there are some formidable hurdles to such a happy outcome. Even securing a trial would be very difficult. The ICC is the only permanent tribunal with jurisdiction over the crime of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity but it has only heard cases of the latter two. The prosecutions for genocide mounted against defendants from the Bosnian War and the Rwandan genocide were handled by international courts established prior to the ICC specifically for the purpose. In a decade of operation the ICC has yet to bring forward a single prosecution for genocide. It would be remarkable indeed to turn around the liberal mentality of the ICC, steeped in the progressive, universalistic agenda of human rights as it is, and have its august consideration given to an analysis, however true, that today only the renegades of white nationalism espouse. Even if one succeeded in the task of getting the court to consider an application, the charge of conspiracy to commit a European genocide by replacement, while it falls notionally within the definitions of an indirect or mental, rather than direct or physical, offence, would struggle to satisfy the evidential requirements which case law has established. These cover both the crime itself and its intentionality. Both must be proven, and proven of named individuals, not governments or army commands or other agencies. Compelling evidence and/or testimony pertaining to each named individual must be gathered. The European genocide, however, is not merely a collective criminal act in any one government’s period in office but an act of successive governments. Conceptually and evidentially it’s a very tough ask unless full documentational disclosure is granted by the government of the day. For that, the long record of paranoid governmental secrecy does not auger at all well. Another difficulty is that the slow, soft nature of a European genocide by replacement, sans mortar shells, sans prison camps, sans mass graves, sans mass rape by men in military uniform, begs a question about what a genocide should look like. Thus far, the court has opened investigations into eight very bloody affairs in Africa played out in the glare of the international media. The desperate weakness of the victims is laughably absent from leafy and well-to-do, middle-class England or the ultra-fashionable Parisian 6th arrondissement. It strains the credibility of anyone who is in the least willing to have their credibility strained, and every liberal-at-heart lawyer falls into that category. For there to be any chance of the court entertaining our claim it would surely be necessary to manage the court’s narrow perspective on genocide, and that of the human rights movement generally. The fundamental presumption should be that the existing legal sanctions against genocide, adopted by the UN General Assembly under Resolution 260 (III) on 9th December 1948, provide a right to life of all peoples and ethnic groups in whole. This is so regardless that there is no Convention guaranteeing that as a positive right. The element of prevention in the 1948 Convention implies as much in the breach. Without the positive state there could be no negative guarantee, and I don’t see how an argument to the contrary can be successful, should it be attempted. This, if accepted, would mean that European peoples are guaranteed protection under the Convention – unless government successfully employs the argument that Europe’s peoples are artificial constructs without clear boundaries, and with a long history of immigration. If these peoples become progressively, say, more Arab or Sub-Saharan African, well, that is just a continuation of the same process, and it is blatant racism to draw a line at ethnic change there or anywhere else. There are two possible counter-arguments to this. The first is that the 1948 Convention, in its very helpful Article 2 (c):
… provides a clear line of attack whereby a demographic replacement by means of the majoritisation of the immigrant populations is sufficient to establish the physical destruction of the European population and, therefore, their differential nature from the non-European populations (yes, I know they are obviously different, but this is the world of government and international law we’re talking about). There can, of course, be no physical destruction if one population segues seamlessly into another. But the principle of replacement curtails that argument. To establish it means concentrating on only one of the three modes of replacement which are actually in train, and that is direct generational replacement by differential birthrates and by on-going chain and economic immigration. Census records, imperfect though they are, demonstrate the trend:
I saw this list in a DT comment and don’t know who made the original compilation, but my thanks to them anyway. The other two engines of replacement, by the way, are ethnic cleansing or displacement of European people abroad, and the loss of ancient European family lines by miscegenation. The second counter-argument to the government mendacity of the effective non-existence of European peoples, except as capacious bags into which any gene from anywhere can be stuffed, is the proof of indigeneity. This is more problematic than it might seem. The term “indigenous” is highly politicised. Anthropologists cannot agree on a definition for it. The human rights industry sees it in terms of oppressed and colonised archaic Third World tribes. However, it should be possible to advance the idea that indigeneity implies not the absence of genes from elsewhere – all peoples have genes from elsewhere - but the development of genetic relatedness on the land. All groups who satisfy this requirement for relatedness (or kinship or shared distinctive genes) are indigenous to the land in question. But acceptance of that proposal and/or the other about replacement won’t bring Europeans today under the protection of Article 2(c) unless they can be successfully identified as a “group”. A definition will therefore have to be developed. By the way, the judges of the ICC cannot be unaware of the demographic change to the people and the town who host them. The Hague’s wiki page tells us that “In November 2012 The Hague counted 504,260 inhabitants making it the third largest city of the Netherlands. The proportion of immigrants in The Hague was 50.5% and the ethnic Dutch population was roughly 49.5%.” Non-white immigrants comprised 34.6%, broken down as Surinam 47,038 (9.4%), Morocco 28,372 (5.6%), Turkey 37,982 (7.6%), Netherlands Antilles and Aruba 12,502 (2.5%), others 47,906 (15.9%). Comments:2
Posted by Sector 19 on Sun, 24 Mar 2013 05:08 | # “most public and intellectually respectable way, challenging the great embargo on speaking racially.” For the time being, this is probably the best way to break an embargo: 3
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 24 Mar 2013 05:31 | # KMac has clearly documented prominent Jewish organizations led Lemkin’s definition of genocide—a definition that may well be accepted by the ICC—against the nation of settlers that was the United States. However, there are those in this very forum who would deny that there ever was such a nation and that any founding stock Americans who might wish to press criminal charges in the ICC would have no standing. On the other hand, there are those in this very forum who would deny that Jewish organizations had a significant hand in the genocide of Europe. If you are going to press criminal charges, who are the suspects? Clearly a criminal investigation must be initiated before the word “suspects” even has legal meaning. What initiates a criminal investigation of genocide and who is responsible for carrying out the investigation? An analogy would be finding a body (ie: the manifest pattern of race replacement of Europeans in Europe) and deciding it was just an accident, merely suicide or perhaps that foul play (intent) was involved. If intent _was_ suspected it may not be adequate to motivate even so much as an investigation if there is no “smoking gun” since the connection between intent and ecological action is, by definition, so diffuse. Alberich is invisible. 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 24 Mar 2013 12:17 | # Wibbly, There is certainly no specific provision within UK company law mandating the maintenance of share value, and I doubt if it is any different in the US. Directors who deliberately destroyed share value a la Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom in The Producers would suffer removal by shareholders or prosecution for fraud if they were shown to have acted as agents for a competitor or hostile buyer. James, Where does Macdonald discuss Lemkin? The Convention was more definitionally narrow than Lemkin wanted. Except for Article 2(b), which states:
... and the openness of Article 2(c), because it does not specify only physical conditions as the precursor of physical genocide, the Convention focuses on the physical destruction. Lemkin understood the relevance of the mental element. From his wiki page (sorry to have to quote that) he wrote in “Axis rule in Occupied Europe”:
... and this:
If I was a lawyer interested in the problem of taking a case for our genocide to The Hague, I might start my investigations in any extant records or biographical memoirs that reveal the reasoning employed between the Paris Peace Conference of 1945 and the final agreement on the terms of the Convention in 1948 that resulted in such narrow definitions. I might read Macdonald while I was at it. 5
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:00 | # KMac may not have referred to Lemkin at all, nor did I asset he did. It was in “Culture of Critique” that KMac’s laid out the case that may be taken verbatim by a lawyer as his case for the genocide of the American nation of settlers—a genocide that was primarily perpetrated by Jewish organizations in the United States with collaborationist authorities such as the Kennedy dynasty. But, again, if we here at MR cannot even come to agreement that founding stock Americans have standing to press charges, then what hope is there for a body like the ICC, so heavily influenced as it is by mendacious forces, to agree that founding stock Americans have standing to press charges? The ICC definition of genocide seems broad enough to cover the American genocide. While it is true that District Attorneys offices provide lawyers to criminal investigations, a criminal investigation must be initiated by a notice from other law enforcement agencies, and then charges are either pressed or not depending on the evidence against specific suspects. At this point it may be appropriate to look at bringing charges of genocide against the Amerindians by the American nation of settlers as a nation of settlers. That would then provide grounds for recognizing the existence of that nation of settlers—probably much to the dismay of some of the denizens of Majority Rights. After all, the argument for the genocide of the American nation of settlers has been that they are distinct from “the nation of immigrants” in the genocide of Amerindians. 6
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:55 | # James, The nation of settlers can still be rationalised as a legitimate entity by means of its identification with the land. Indigeneity is not the sole rationalisation for such identification. Colonisations can be legitimised by two means: by the consent of the colonised (which I do not believe has been forthcoming often in human history, if at all) and by victory at arms. The settlers fought a war of armed men on horseback with the indigenous tribes, and won. Legitimacy was conferred thereby. On that basis, white Americans took over the place of the tribes as owners of the land. There is, however, a glitch. It was only after the pacification of the tribes that soil could be broken, and only after that that negro slave labour was introduced. So far so good. But then the negro slave was freed as an equal citizen, and that equality cannot exclude ownership of America. And then we hit the slippery slope ... The problem becomes the illegitimacy of who follows, which includes white immigrants, obviously. How and where to draw the line of legitimacy? Genes? Genealogy? Politically at Hart-Cellar? What works as the expression of a defensible principle? 7
Posted by Only UKIP Can Save The English. on Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:21 | # Those ststistics for the London boroughs are absolutely shocking. I’m surprised they haven’t instigated more of a ruckus. 8
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:50 | # And whom would Americans take to court? The court might dismiss the claim on the very simple basis that, as a democratic nation, US government policy reflects the will of the people, and of course in a democracy people might disagree but that is a matter to be worked out within the democratic structures of the USA. International law is one of the great mythologies of our time btw. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:06 | # Graham, Politicians trade on a declining asset when they claim democratic legitimacy. American politicians are no different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections It is, in any case, inherent to any submission to the ICC that the victim people are deprived of autonomy and control over their own destiny. That is not at all difficult to demonstrate in this case. 10
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:07 | # GW: The inclusion of Africans in the American nation of settlers is relatively minor as a present issue. The present issue is European standing in Europe and if such inclusion works toward that end then so what? 11
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:22 | # GL: The defendants would be the Jewish organizations identified by KMac as deliberately setting out to degrade if not eliminate the national identity of America that could be considered predominantly that of the settling peoples. That is a very strong case. If Jews try to adopt your argument then they would become identified with the guilty party in the genocide of Amerindians which was primarily a phenomenon of the post abolition circumstances of the United States in which the Federal government imposed on the southern states political reformation that promoted an African political authority in those States:
The nose of the camel in the ICC tent is the prosecution of the genocide of Amerindians. 12
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:27 | # As for “democracy” justifying genocide, that much was denied by treating the democratically elected regime of Hitler as the perpetrator of genocide against Germans who were Jewish. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:32 | # James, Obviously, Europe’s peoples are European because Europe’s nations are blood nations. Defining them as closed genealogical systems is pretty straightforward. The America of the Founders was a blood nation with a constitutional system. America post-bellum was a constitutional nation. You need to define your way back to blood, and you need to do it in such a way that the later waves of white immigrants are included. You need to find, in words and principles, the eternal nation that carries the name White America. Personally, I doubt that you will find that kind of blood-unity in contract. But you are welcome to prove me wrong. That’s a good point about democracy and Hitler, btw. 14
Posted by Momus on Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:38 | # Of course one of the problems Americans have in terms of their cultural politics is what I previously dubbed the ‘John Coltrane’ question. Why is the music of John Coltrane not authentically American? In other words what is the legitimate ‘demarcation’ between Americans and non-Americans? Let alone how can this work within the polity itself? Obviously I have argued previously – with only slight mockery – that in fact we are all proto-Americans in two senses. Firstly, the whole ‘proposition nation’ thing. One is an American simply by promising to be a lover of individual liberty, cheese in a spray can and all that other good Americana (or anyone is, effectively, but one pledge from the beloved state of being an American). The second way in which we are all proto-Americans is in the Schmittian sense of living under the regime of ‘spaceless universalism’ that is in essence now an American geopolitical, economic and cultural project. The USA is the now the key home of (and the bleeding edge of) the system know as now as neoliberalism/globalisation. Our American friends at MR don’t want to hear this, resent people who point this out etc., but America is the liberal nation par excellence. Liberality is foundational to the socio-political experiment that is the USA. Liberal ontology is in Uncle Sam’s political and cultural DNA – perhaps as GW suggested in the populations actual DNA too (but I’m sceptical, to be honest, on genes ‘for’ such highly contingent and historically specific ideologies). Mr. Bowery might wish he was back in the Plymouth County of 1620ish, but unfortunately we cannot be like the Irishman when asked how to get to Tipperary answers “well you don’t want to start from here.” We are where we are. And where Americans are is this. A socio-political order has been established and founded upon radical liberal theory (for the time) further infused with the ethos of radical Protestantism to produce a fairly ‘individualistic’ form of politics and culture. The USA is premised upon a maximalist and near absolutist individualistic ideology. The true Holy documents of the American regime are full of the sentiment that all men are created equally with certain inalienable individual rights etc., blah blah blah. Now historically everyone understands there was an asterisk – some restrictions may apply - as the saying goes. Now those restrictions – rights for men only (of a certain economic status), but let’s not include plebs please, and no women and no blacks thank you very much! - was part of the background assumptions of the the blessed saints known as the Founding Fathers but guess what has more robustly stood the test of time and still informs the American political imagination? That’s right, by and large, all of the ideas they actually put into the document and not the mainly implicit (but not completely) secondary assumptions it was authored under. Under what realistically imaginable circumstances would the US Constitution or Bill of Rights etc., be understood to only apply to only one sub-group of American society? By what criterion, from within American political and legal norms, would John Coltrane not also be a ‘real’ American? I’d have more sympathy with our American friends if they could fess-up that these Holy documents might have been somewhat flawed from the get-go. Alas I think that would be too much of a genuine ‘thought-crime’ for an American. After all Lockean philosophical anthropology is the essence of ‘the human’ as such, yes? And on the mythology of ‘neutral’ international law I’d suggest the excellent “Victors’ Justice: From Nuremberg to Baghdad” by the Italian scholar Danilo Zolo. 15
Posted by wibbly on Sun, 24 Mar 2013 20:00 | #
The target of the genocide is defined by the perpetrators: Americans of European descent. 16
Posted by Tim on Sun, 24 Mar 2013 21:21 | #
What do you mean by “African political authority”? 17
Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 24 Mar 2013 21:56 | #
Right—I don’t see this as a problem. The primary problem is that, as in criminal courts in the US, the victims of genocide have no standing to bring cases in the International Criminal Court. The case must be initiated by the Prosecutor. “Pursuant to the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor can initiate an investigation on the basis of a referral from any State Party or from the United Nations Security Council. In addition, the Prosecutor can initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court received from individuals or organisations (‘communications’).” Here is your prosecutor: And the prosecutor’s assistants: The ultimate problem, of course, is that the Court is part of the centralized power that is orchestrating the genocide in the first place. 18
Posted by A Swain on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 00:44 | # Before White nations can take on any of the tentacles of the Marxist/Zionist New World Order such as in this instance, the setup known as the ICC, they must first come together to create and enact a counter human rights movement incorporating its own rules and judicial body. Only then can the dice get rolling. 19
Posted by Momus on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:26 | # @GW Well it’s not my view that so-called ‘democratic legitimacy’ trumps all. After all we all live in societies in which the range of political options ‘allowed’ are so incredibly narrow as to be almost meaningless. And the USA is of course a plutocracy with a very thin and ineffective ‘democratic’ element to its politics. Rather my point was that those political elites within the ‘democratic club’ generally don’t bring each other to court in such matters (it’s bad form old chap), the court wouldn’t recognise the case from a non-state third party/NGO, along the lines of “we don’t interfere with democracies that play by the rules - as we define them” and thirdly international law, especially in this area, is deeply political and the source of much hypocrisy, sophistry and all-round casuistry. Furthermore, the USA does not even recognise the court in question, does it? Of course European nations are signed up but how far a case could get is doubtful. But I’m not a lawyer so happy to admit that’s just my guess as a political animal. As Schmitt points out all laws are political - let alone inter-state laws. I also mentioned Danilo Zolo’s work on this. There’s also Martti Koskenniemi and his book “From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument” in which he argues that much of international law veers between two polarities: either an irrelevant moralist Utopia (of ‘universal human rights’ arising somehow from the legal ether) or a manipulable façade for the realpolitik of state interests (with the most powerful states calling the shots). Both of which obscure the irredeemably political nature of international law and just how much is international law is itself an ad hoc bricolage based both on the particular political, economic etc., relationships between states at any one time, but also the internal political dynamics of those states. Yet international law also at some level must semi-seriously employ various legal norms within the discourse to gather some form of argumentative legitimacy. Thus it’s rather Janus-faced and hybrid nature. Which does raise interesting questions as to the basis of US-Israeli interactions - after all, objectively in many ways, Israel really is not an important nation (at all) yet seems to have the US as its geo-political shabbos goy. Even to extent that would be leaders of the ‘free world’ genuflect before AIPAC and the Knesset and beg for ‘approval’. Very serious and sober policy analysts (e.g. Mearsheimer and Walt) ask, very reasonably, what rationally (in policy terms) does the USA actually gain from this curious servility? But anyway I suppose that’s off the main point. And let’s not get into the bat-shit crazy crap that is ‘Christian Zionism’ please. However returning to the main point (sort of), only lawyers on the make, deluded liberals, or morons such as Claire Short thinks if the UN etc., says something is ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’ that it makes a policy like the second Iraq war wonderful and all yummy or or bad and irresponsible. Anyone that maintains the USA invades other nations to primarily ‘promote’ democracy or human rights is a cretinous rube or a cynical liar. Yes it’s secondary window dressing for the New York Times to lap up and pontificate about in equally portentous and sanctimonious terms, but really does anyone actually buy into that shit? Dick Cheney as the post-modern carrier of the ‘white man’s burden’ to bring ‘human rights’ to one and all? Please pull the other one - it’s got bells on it. 20
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 02:05 | # GW, I don’t know why you keep trying to change the subject of the thread responding to your own main post. I brought up America only in terms of its utility to the topic of the original post. The project you assign me, to save the American nation of settlers from inclusion of Africans, is—however otherwise meritorious—a digression. 21
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 02:15 | # 22
Posted by Tim on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 02:48 | # James, what do you mean by the following? What is the relationship between the genocide of the Amerindians and the African political authority following the Civil War?
23
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:44 | #
http://www.civilwarhome.com/cherokeecauses.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_freedmen_controversy#Civil_War_and_abolition_of_slavery 24
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:12 | # There had been partial relocations of some eastern Amerindian tribes prior to the War for Abolition (the title it deserves in honor of the fact that the Union likely wouldn’t have won without the morale engendered by adopting that name—propaganda it may have been) were careless enough to qualify for genocide. That is to say, if “carelessness” can be imputed to contain within it “intent”—a very slippery legal concept indeed as one should, instead, at least be allowed to ask “cui bono”? A ruling power is clearly not excused from genocide under ICC rules merely because it rules. If it acts in a way that does not “intend” harm to some class of people under its power but rather toward some other end, and in so doing fulfills all the other qualities of genocide, then it is difficult to see the rational justification for invoking “intent”. Clearly this is a principle that has been adopted in recent decades with the concept of “disparate impact”—where “intent” is no longer a primary question. However, after the War for Abolition, the genocide of the Amerindian nations really picked up steam in the settlement of the West. This may have merely been a time correlation with no causal connection. However it is the case that, despite what Marxists may like to say about the War for Abolition, the yeoman farmers of the Confederation were as likely to be dispossessed by the war and the ensuing chaos—including the careless imposition of African political authority—as were the slave holders of the Confederation. Consequently many were coerced to move to the frontier where land was being settled. This may have contributed to the era during which the bulk of the Amerindian genocide took place. GW’s assertion that the War for Abolition really became a turning point in the character of the United States as a nation is well taken. Even Lincoln and earlier Jefferson, both abolitionists, did not view Africans as properly belonging in to the United States nation of settlers. Lincoln’s assassination may well have been necessary for the 14th Amendment’s passage. In any event, the antipathy of the Federal government toward the Confederate states was such that the adoption of the 14th Amendment was more an act of vengeance upon them than an act of principle, as was much of reconstruction. This had the consequence of dealing the death blow to the United States as an organic nation. It also dealt the death blow to the United States as a government of Constitutional law. The rise of Federal powers in the aftermath of the War for Abolition (treating it as if it were what Congress originally called it: “War for Union”) were clearly as unconstitutional as was slavery immoral. I don’t know what kind of “nation” one might call the United States once the post-War excesses had been unleashed, but it certainly should not be considered the rule of any sort of de jure law, including Constitutional. Come to think of it, that fact alone may have accounted for much of the pressure on the Western Amerindians after the War for Abolition. Not only were Confederate yeoman farmers fleeing chaos, but anyone who genuinely identified with the rule of law and the organic nation over which it held jurisdiction, would have yearned to be beyond the reach of the yoke of the lawlessly empowered de facto Federal government. 25
Posted by Momus on Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:18 | # @GW Well it’s not my view that very narrowly defined, so-called ‘democratic legitimacy’ trumps all. After all we all live in societies in which the range of political options ‘allowed’ are so incredibly narrow as to be almost meaningless. And the USA is of course a plutocracy with a very thin and ineffective ‘democratic’ element to its politics. Rather my point was that those political elites within the ‘democratic club’ generally don’t bring each other to court in such matters (its bad form old chap), the court wouldn’t recognise the case from a non-state third party/NGO, along the lines of “we don’t interfere with democracies that play by the rules - as we define them” and thirdly international law, especially in this area, is deeply political and the source of much hypocrisy, sophistry and all-round casuistry. Furthermore, the USA does not even recognise the court in question, does it? Of course European nations are signed up but how far a case could get is doubtful. But I’m not a lawyer so happy to admit that’s just my guess as a political animal. As Schmitt points out all laws are political - let alone inter-state laws. I also mentioned Danilo Zolo’s work on this. There’s also Martti Koskenniemi and his book “From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument” in which he argues that much of international law veers between two polarities: either an irrelevant moralist Utopia (of ‘universal human rights’ arising somehow from the legal ether) or a manipulable façade for the realpolitik of state interests (with the most powerful states calling the shots). Both of which obscure the irredeemably political nature of international law and just how much is international law is itself an ad hoc bricolage based both on the particular political, economic etc., relationships between states at any one time, but also the internal political dynamics of those states. Yet in order to have some form of narrative and argumentative legitimacy legal concepts and norms must be used and incorporated - even just as rhethoric to cover the power politics. But quelle surprise some people (and states even) then take the legal norms seriously and start to construct new legal doctrines from within that discourse. Thus the Janus-faced and hybrid nature of international law I think. Which does raise interesting question as to the basis of US-Israeli interactions - after all, objectively in many ways, Israel really is not an important nation (at all) yet seems to have the US as its geo-political shabbos goy. Even to extent that would be leaders of the ‘free world’ genuflect before AIPAC and the Knesset and beg for ‘approval’. Very serious and sober policy analysts (e.g. Mearsheimer and Walt) ask, very reasonably, what rationally (in policy terms) does the USA actually gain from this curious servility? Shall we not get into the bat-shit crazy crap that is ‘Christian Zionism’ please. However, let’s not go too ‘off-topic’ - only lawyers on the make, deluded liberals, or morons such as Claire Short thinks if the UN says something is ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’ that it makes a policy like the second Iraq war wonderful and yummy or or bad and irresponsible. Anyone that maintains the USA invades other nations to primarily ‘promote’ democracy or human rights is a cretinous rube or a cynical liar. Yes it’s secondary window dressing for the New York Times to lap up and pontificate about in equally portentous and sanctimonious terms, but really does anyone actually buy into that shit? Dick Cheney as the post-modern carrier of the ‘white man’s burden’ to bring ‘human rights’ to one and all? Please pull the other one - it’s got bells on it. Let alone the notion that any member of the US political elite would be put on trial by an international court is too silly for words. 26
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:44 | # Israel perfectly plays on the white man’s foolishness, weakness, and ethical superiority. In Europe (at least outside of the UK, which seems to have an alarmingly powerful Jewish presence, and thus presents rational (non-psychological) reasons for indigenous sellouts) Israel obviously gains moral influence from the Holocaust narrative. There may also be some covert appreciation on the part of Continental governments for the role of Israeli intelligence in swatting down Muslim terrorists (though resentment, too, at the real possibility that Israeli activity also brings Muslim terrorism to European states). WRT the US, the situation is obviously much different. The Jewish vote here is relatively numerically small, but more significant than foreigners might suppose, given that Jewish turnout is extremely high (so, btw, especially at the Federal level, is black turnout - in recent elections, actually higher than its white counterpart; probably the Obama factor, but black turnout in Presidential elections has been on a par with whites for several decades). Most of that goes to Democrats. Moreover, Jews are, of course, by several orders of magnitude the wealthiest discrete ethnic group in the US, and they are also, as a group, highly motivated and politically activist. They give vast sums of campaign cash. Indeed, the two primary sources of campaign dollars for Democrats are unions (esp the public sector ones, which means we Republicans have to subsidize our political enemies) and Jews (occasionally this fact of empirical political science is euphemized as “Hollywood”, or “Wall Street”, or “trial lawyers”; otoh, “development interests” or general “business interests” may or may not include Jews, but usually aren’t to be taken as referring exclusively to them; “ag” or “extraction industries” are not euphemisms for Jewish money). Jews also disproportionately, as in the UK, own or editorially control the MSM, which makes them vastly more powerful than their mere numbers would suggest. Go against perceived Jewish desires, and the intrepid goy politician of either party pays a price in media negativity and smears. The situation wrt Republicans and their Israel sycophancy is somewhat different. Like their Democratic opponents, they, as individuals, don’t need Judeo-MSM harassment. They also want Jewish campaign money, even if they never get as much of it as the Democrats (but the “staunch friends of Israel” in the GOP do get their share). Moreover, the theological embarrassment known as “Christian Zionism” is a very real phenomenon in the US, and it counts among its adherents a substantial minority of the Republican party, including many of the most highly motivated ‘grassroots’ people, the ones who do the basic campaign gruntwork (envelope stuffing, telephone ‘trees’, door-to-door canvassing) which in the case of the Democrats gets accomplished largely by union memberships. A Republican ‘bad on Israel’ will struggle, not because of the loss of rank-and-file Jewish voters, but because he will see a bunch of his normal evangelical voters either ‘stay home’ on election day, or at least be insufficiently enthusiastic to enable him to counter the natural Democratic/union manpower advantage. Also, many Republicans really do see American and Israeli foreign and military policy interests as being closely aligned. There is some objective basis for this. Israel has a world class intelligence service, and a tough and experienced military in a dangerous part of the world which is nevertheless perceived (erroneously, I think) to be ‘vital’ to the USA. Israel’s military, even if heavily built up courtesy of Middle American tax-suckers, is functionally capable of being a real US ally in a way that those of many of our European allies are not (the UK, with its comparatively large (though shrinking) and excellent force, is of course an exception). The US also has extensive commercial and developmental ties to Israeli companies, many of which are world-class leaders in IT and hi-tech areas, especially military technology. US/Israeli economic relations are not a totally one-way street. Finally, I strongly suspect (but of course, as an ordinary civilian, don’t know) that the US outsources ‘wetwork’ to the Mossad and IDF. I believe that Israel does some of America’s clandestine dirty work, jobs the US Empire deems necessary, but for which we either lack the ‘assets’ on the ground, or wish to maintain official ‘deniability’. This would appeal to Republicans, too. The bottom line is that, for both parties, kissing Israeli ass may actually make sense. From a patriotic perspective, the whole “special relationship” is shameful and depressing, obviously. 27
Posted by Joe on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:50 | # The ” Journey to the Hague ”—to the Communist-style European Union with the Jews in control—started back in the 18 th century with the French Revolution. The French Revolution was Europe’s first communist revolution/revolt. It was very Jewish/communist at- the-core. It was yet another time in history the Catholic Church came under severe and unrelenting attack. The white race in Europe too divided by the Protestant Reformation—and the subsequent break-down of white Europeans into various churches*/denominations/sects—to put up a United Defense against the Jewish/satanic assault on Europe and the collective interests of white Europe , of Authentic Chritianity : the Catholic Church. Many people think—especially many WN’ers—“political correctness” is because of Christianity ; That somehow the ontology/metaphysics of Christianity is the root cause of “political correctness”. Not so. Political correctness does not come to us from Christianity, or at least not from Catholicism, as Catholicism = Authentic Christianity ; Political correctness comes from the Jew’s talmud/kaballah/communism and Protestant “christians”. It was the Protestants who broke off with the Church to go follow the Jews and do things the Jewish way. Calvin was a Jew. Melanctron was a Jew. The Protestant Reformation was at-heart Jewish-inspired. So many in the white race rejected the One institution—the Catholic Church—the Very Church that did the most to Unite White Europeans and build Western Civilization in the very first place, to go follow the Jew’s kabbalah “religion” : All the Protestant churches greatly inspired by Judaism, alot more than traditional Catholicim ever was. The Catholic Church protected Europe from Islam and from the worst depridations of talmudic/kaballah Judaism. Alot more than Protestants ever did. Later on in history, many whites took it a step further and worshipped “Aryanism”——> also handed to them from Jews/Freemasons, just like their Protestant churches were handed to them from Jews/Freemasons. So, of course the Jews are in control now : So many whites rejected the One Institution that United White Europe and built Western Civilization in the very first place - the Catholic Church. The Jew-communist inspired French Revolution [ a Revolution many Protestant “christians” loved and supported ] : http://mailstar.net/correctness.html Aryanism, in other words, Nazism, also contains at the ontological foundation dynamics from Islam and kaballah metaphysics. WN’ers who worship any type of Aryan “religion” are worshipping the kaballah and Islam, though many don’t even realize it, so mesmerized they are with themselves as qua whites, anyone can come around, pat them on the back, give them some compliments, and they’ll accept any or all “religions” such a pied-piper hands them. I don’t sense Harland is a Jew play-pretending to be a WN’er. Harland is a Mormon. Mormonism just reeks from his work : the Mormonism of the high-degree of the Mormon Temple/Freemason sanctuary in Salt Lake. The end result of the Protestant Reformation is a “religion” of kaballah, Islam, with a thin veneer of Christianity as a shroud, a cover for what is the true ontology. Mormonism being the perfect example - the first ” white American indigenous religion ” ; The protestant churches closely following the Mormons in their love for Jews and Zionism—even if Zionist jews hate Christians—the protestants and mormons don’t pay that any mind. Another end result of the Protestant Reformation is pantheism—worship of any god, or gods, whatever feels good to you. So of course the Race is greatly divided ; So of course the Jews rule over us now, so of course Europe is now over-run with Islamicists. Even Hitler—so supposedly concerned about the interests of the white race—had Muslim/Islamic jihadists in his vaunted “Aryan” military. To a large degree, it was the Third Reich that opened Europe up to Islam, and to Islamic jihadists. So you WN’ers who worship Hitler to kibbles-and-bits are worshipping someone who left Europe wide-open for militant-warring Islam. And Harland has the audacity to blame the Catholic Church. The Church was opposed to the giant internecine war called WW2 from the very start. The loss of blood the White Race suffered during WW2 is a Loss that Echoes Unto Eternity, yet many WN’ers—supposedly so concerned for their White Race— heap nothing but scorn, disdain, and hatred on the One Institution—the Catholic Church—that tried to safeguard the Genetic Heritage of Our Race during WW2, while they worship “religions” handed to them by Jews/satanists/Freemasons : Our enemies. And then they complain about the Jews and Jewish influence while all along they worship “religions” the Jews handed to them. How much time and energy they spend trying to figure out how the Jews took control. But rarely, if ever, do WN’ers try to examine our innate faults as a Race. The White Race, collectively, cast away the One True Cross, for the “cross” of the talmudic/kaballah Jews and the “cross” of the Islamic jihadists. Instead of carrying the One True Cross on one shoulder, we now—as a Race—carry two crosses, one on each shoulder: Jewish Communism/Zionism and Miltant-Warring Islam. It can be traced back, to a large degree, to both the Protestant Reformation and the French Revolution : Two major assaults on The Church that once served to Unite the White Race. Search term : ” Catholic View of the Talmud” 28
Posted by Joe on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:34 | # Not all Mormons are trouble-makers like the Mormon Harland most surely is a trouble-maker. Some Mormons tell us the truth ; ” Understanding Hegelian Dialectics, Building NWO ” : http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=20545 The problem with Mormons is the same problem amongst all groups of whites, with all of our White “leadership”. They are working towards the NWO whether they realize it or not. The ones on very high levels know it fully well however. That’s why Romney was so gung-ho to kick start WW3 by starting a war with Iran. That’s why I didn’t vote for him even though we’re both white. I didn’t vote for the african-born communist Obama-jamba either. I stayed home and gardened on Election Day, then took my dog to the local dog park so he could romp around with his buddies. The 3rd World War the satanists in the world have planned—the satanic ruling class includes both Jews and non-Jews, though the Jewish satanists lead the way, and the non-Jewish satanists and Freemasons willingly follow [ with free full will and volition ]. The plan is to get the Jews and Muslims to go to war against one another. The plan is to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Hence, Kissinger said ” Israel only has 10 years left” . Also—in this 3rd War—both the Jews and the Muslims will be greatly weakened in power. At least the Jews not part of the plan—the Jews not “in-the-know”. The ruling-class satanic Jewish banking-elite don’t mind sacrificing their own kind [ their “lessen brethren” : Their term, not mine] to achieve their goal of a NWO—Nazi Germany being an example of Jews sacrificing their own kind—along with everyone else—to achieve their satanic goal of a NWO. The Mormon leadership encourages Mormons to support the NWO telling their flock when the Jews and Muslims knock one another out, then the Mormons will Reign, and Mormonism will be Top-Dog : This is not true. Romney and his Mormon-leadership ilk are greatly confused, or are out-right liars. Only die-hard and intense satanists will rule after all the smoke clears after their longed-planned and long-dreamed-for 3rd World War. After the Jews and Muslims fight to exhaustion, the satanists have planned massive internecine war amongst ourselves, those of us who are white Caucasian. Wars based on all of our differences—of which there are millions of differences as we’re greatly divided as a Race—including and especially, our religious differences. It doesn’t take much to get the White Race to go to internecine war. That’s the historical record—including the historical record of the vaunted ancient German/Teutons, the Vikings, the Celts, the Normans, etc.. A giant internecine war now amongst the White Race will lead to our extinction as a Race—especially because of how much white Causcasian blood was lost for all of Eternity during WW2 [and also through the mass-murder of whites in the Communist Soviet Union- not internecine]. We do, as a Race, love our internecine wars : For example, One-third of the White Race in Europe was killed in the 100 years that followed after Luther the “great reformer”. He didn’t “reform” our love for internecine war though—it runs deep in the blood. Including the blood of Northern European from pre-Christian times down to our present-day. There is in Mormonism a dynamic from ancient Turkey. The god “Mormo” is an ancient god of pre-Christianity. “Mormo” : http://plastictub.vaporslave.com/index.php?title=mormo Rank-and- file Mormons would do well to tell their Mormon big-shot leaders to drop the freemasonry/turkish/islamic/kaballah aspects of Mormonism and just dwell on the Christian strains of thought in Mormonism. The Mormon rank-and-file will taking it on-the-chin along with the rest of the White Race if the NWO have their way. The ruling leaders of Mormonism are lying to their rank-and-file as all of our white “leaders” are. If the NWO comes to fruition, all of us—including Mormons—will be ruled by die-hard and intense satanists. The Mormons won’t be ruling anything, let alone being the Top Dog rulers. It’s a great deception being imposed on the Mormon rank-and-file. Learn what a country is like when it’s ruled by satanists : ” Eustace Mullins + The Secret Holocaust pdf “ The Mormon rank-and-file will NOT be spared because they’re Mormons. They’ll be taking-it-on-the-chin along with the rest of us if the NWO gang succeeds in “manifesting” their satanic “vision” from hell itself. Search Term : ” Hegelian Dialectics “ ” Albert Pike 3 World Wars Planned”
29
Posted by wibbly on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:27 | # Ben Tillman
Sure, it’s just a method for taking the moral high ground which by extension would destroy the legitimacy of those courts unless they accomodated it. As a meme warfare chess move it’s perfect - if difficult to actually achieve. 30
Posted by Hymie in Afula on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:51 | # >> a criminal investigation must be initiated by a notice from other law enforcement agencies Not in the USA. In the USA, Grand Juries are autonomous bodies. Anyone and everyone has the right to deliver a sworn affidavit to the Foreman of the currently empaneled Grand Jury in a jurisdiction. Just make sure that you allege the violation of a **particular law** which that Grand Jury has responsibility for. IE, a State of New Mexico grand jury has no cognizance of a charge of counterfeiting currency. The federal grand jury in Albuequerque does. A Grand Jury issue subpeonas **in its own name**. Using police resources is merely a convenience. They **could** hire their own investigators. 31
Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 30 Mar 2013 06:03 | #
I agree, and I’d love to do it. The Peace Palace is a wonderful place to try a case. 32
Posted by Franklin Ryckaert on Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:43 | # What is happening in all white countries presently is : 1) Mass immigration of non-Whites with an above-replacement birthrate. This will eventually lead to marginalization if not total extinction of the white race. The result will be the same as an all-out genocide, i.e. the physical disappearance of an ethnic group. And yet the ICC will dismiss the claim of “genocide” with the arguments : 1) No actual direct genocide (=mass killings) is committed. The ICC is in itself part of the NWO power structure that has white genocide as one of its aims. You cannot expect any consideration from them for our cause. There is no other way than to gain political power for white ethno-nationalists in all white countries. The Greek Golden Dawn and the Hungarian Jobbik show the way to go. 33
Posted by wibbly on Thu, 04 Apr 2013 21:59 | #
Doesn’t matter. The point is to convince enough of the white population that they have been targetted for a stealth genocide. Just getting the genocide meme out there widens the political space.
34
Posted by Flags of The World on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:41 | # I support this news. They should take proper steps against a stealth genocide. 35
Posted by Buy Puzzle Games on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:44 | # I think every nation and country support this information. Because the humanity always hate crime.So they must take some low against a criminal. 36
Posted by Joe on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:49 | # @ Flags of the World You’re not going to sell too many Union Jacks on this website. The Union Jack has a CROSS on it. The CROSS is a Christian symbol , Christian symbols are taboo in the Dasein “religion”. You’ll probably could make more $$$ selling Nazi Flags + the Flag of the erstwhile Soviet Union + Star-of-David Flags + the Flag(s) of Islamic Jihad : All 4 are Dasein-based, so that would appeal more to the Daseinites here. Learn your demographics, Flag dude, learn your consumer-base, learn their preferences : Daseinites prefer NO CROSS, please, “god is dead”, don’t ever forget that. 37
Posted by Mick Lately on Wed, 01 May 2013 21:21 | # http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317411/One-babies-England-parent-born-abroad.html English being displaced. Not looking good for the Irish either. 38
Posted by Arrival of The Windrush on Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:29 | # GW is observing that this article is innacurate: Notably, Alfred Barnes was Minister of Transport at the time, not Harry Nathan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Barnes_(Labour_politician) “The SS Empire Windrush: The Jewish Origins of Multicultural Britain” July 12, 2015 — Andrew Joyce
Post a comment:
Next entry: Rhetorical tools like “The Runnymede Trials”
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by wibbly on Sun, 24 Mar 2013 04:40 | #
I think this is fertile terriotory as it involves a fight for the moral high ground which imo is the big stumbling block for a critical percentage of our people.
A second tack along similar lines might be “what is treason?” In UK terms treason is tied up with the Monarchy but i’m guessing there is already a body of corporate law based on the idea that a member of a corporate body has some kind of duty of care for the other members e.g. if a company with a million shares creates and sells another million thereby diluting the value of the other shareholder’s stock without their consent. If such a body of law already exists i think it could be used as the basis for adding a clause along the lines of “attempting to turn the indigenous majority into a minority” to the law against treason.
Arguing for that - especially if that body of law already exists - would generate moral high ground points also imo.