The practical implications of European indigenous status - updated 21st September 08

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 20 September 2008 23:39.

JWH has responded to a comment of mine here at MR which revisited the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigeneous Peoples (pdf).

My comment included a quote from the Declaration:-

Article 8

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.

JWH then noted that:-

For some reason, majority groups who have evolved for long time periods in specific lands - which would seem to the honest and the rational to be the very definition of “indigenous” - are not included in this definition and are so not meant to be included in the protections that the UN document offers. Of all (currently) majoritarian groups, only Europeans of the major populations are truly endangered. So, although, for example, the Chinese have a case to argue that the UN unfairly deprives them of indigenous status, there’s no real world implications of that. For Europeans being race replaced in their ancient homelands, the issue is of the greatest real world importance imaginable.

Therefore, it is of the greatest importance that this issue not be forgotten and be followed up on. I realize I am just yelling into the wind here and that, as usual, all such urgent pronouncements will be utterly ignored (after a few possible comments of, “he’s right, but now, let’s talk about ‘council housing”).

What should be done if this issue were not ignored? One cannot expect the UN, in the current context, to seriously consider anything that would support the interests of European-derived peoples. After all, it seems like one major objective of the UN (possibly, the major objective) is the destruction of those peoples.

However, that minority of intelligent, thoughtful and reasonable stakeholders in European preservationism need to have this UN document, and the implications of it for European-derived peoples, made clear to them - and they need to be given the intellectual tools to be able to speak out and confront the globalists with demands for change with respect to definitions of “indigenous” and the rights of protection that go along with it (*).

Now, let’s be clear-eyed and accept that this Declaration was drafted by the irredeemably liberal political class to protect “endangered tribes” in “fragile ecosystems” subject to the rapacious attentions of wealthy and politically connected business interests. For many years now, there have been persistent voices on the international stage calling for full legal protection in international law for these tribes. The campaign did not succeed with this Declaration. It is not legally binding. But it is at least a gesture in the “right” direction, and perhaps these things have to be tackled in stages.

It should be noted by European preservationists that the actors who drafted the Declaration and those who approved it were not pushing on an open door. They were opposing the interests of the global trade system and the express wishes of the American government (plus Australia and New Zealand). So the singular focus on their oppressed, half-naked tribepersons was to be expected. Had there been any official effort in the General Assembly to include all the world’s native peoples in the Declaration, it would have gone against the spirit of the endeavour.

Even so, we have something to complain about as a result of the limitations applied to the Declaration. What would be the point of coming over all sentimental about the plight of Europe’s declining indigenous populations in, say, thirty years time, when action now might do something to arrest the situation?

In his Western Biopolitics post JWH also concludes that something should be done about the Declaration, and tells us what it should be:-

The first step is for qualified people to step up and create a document, a “white paper” of sorts, which clearly and irrefutably makes the case for majoritarian groups in their ancient homelands as being considered “indigenous” and thus included in the protective clauses of this UN document. By “qualified” I mean people who are anthropologists, sociobiologists, population geneticists - even historians and lawyers can be useful, but the first two or three groups are essential. If someone like Frost would like to atone for his past as an “anti-racist,” he would be a good choice to participate - he has the professional background, he has shown some sympathy for preservationism yet is not labelled as an “extremist” - and the issue is such that it can be framed as one dealing with fairness and humanity; he would not necessarily have to be binned as a “hater” for merely arguing for the anthropological definition of traditional majorities in their ancient homelands as “indigenous.”

Other people who could contribute if they were so inclined would be Salter, Harpending, Cochran, and others as well. MacDonald can help, but of course the usual suspects would start screaming about “anti-Semitism.” The suspects should be ignored, as MacDonald could make important contributions to this endeavor.

My feeling is different. Western Europe is the ancient homeland, and Western European, not American, voices are the ones which would need to be raised. Also, we should accept that last September’s General Assembly Declaration is important for the principles it contains, which are indeed universal - and in a decent world would be understood as such. This is the key point. We do not live in a decent world. The Declaration is not a train that will be brought back to the station for our benefit. To be perfectly brutal, it was never meant for our benefit, and never will be. The whole process would have to be started again from scratch, as a properly-constituted, staffed and funded long-term campaign seeking a new Declaration.

But that raises problems - and not just the logistical ones of who, actually, would undertake such work. Assuming they could be found, the campaigners couldn’t morally insist on a European exceptionalism. They would be forced to seek the granting of indigenous status to all the world’s indigenes. But there is no demand from the rest of the world. On the contrary, since the rest of the world is happily exporting people to Europe, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, it would likely oppose any attempt to obtain for Europeans even the non-legal “protections” afforded by the present Declaration. So on what morally legitimate basis could the Campaign operate?

To be perfectly frank, I think the answer to that is: none. We probably have to forget about campaigning on the international stage. Nationally, however, in the media, in our plaints to our elected representatives we can use the Declaration to some advantage, regardless of its declared limited purpose. We can profitably exploit the connection between our future condition as a demographic minority and the unimpeachably moral principles of the Declaration as it appears today. There is a powerful argument for justice in them. They tell us that we have the right to live and live free, and that nobody - not government, not sectional interests, not foreign populations - has any right to gainsay that. They challenge the present political and legal dispensation at many levels, upturning the trope of white oppression and de-moralising preferentiality where it currently operates against us. Most of all, they delegitimise the continuing process of population transfer.

Let’s use the tool that we have been given. It may be a very long while before we are given anything quite like it.

UPDATED 21st September 08

JWH asks one questions and makes two comments:-

1. Why only Western Europe? Eastern Europeans are stakeholders in European preservationism as well, and have an interest in being labelled “indigenous.”

2. I still believe American contributors should be involved, if for no other reason that many are qualified to do so, and are often more “empirical” (as GW would put it) than their European counter-parts.

3. Most importantly, while I wholeheartedly agree with GW that the current document (which I’ll add to the links list here) can be used as a moral hammer against anti-white interests, I still see the effort to attempt to have the definition of “indigenous” changed to be of value.

Right, well, the Declaration is a political instrument commending certain Third World governments to protect the genetic, cultural and territorial integrity of their own “archaic tribes”. Its granting of indigenous status solely to these tribes, rather than to all indigenous peoples throughout the world, was a wholly practical measure, not an ethical one - which outcome is not, of course, going to be reversed or modified. Had ethics been the determinant the guiding principle would have been universalism, since rights are always assumed to be universal where the liberal writ runs.

So the most immense double-standard is being applied. Now, how best to expose it? Well, JWH has already stated in his initial post that:-

Of all (currently) majoritarian groups, only Europeans of the major populations are truly endangered. So, although, for example, the Chinese have a case to argue that the UN unfairly deprives them of indigenous status, there’s no real-world implications of that. For Europeans being race-replaced in their ancient homelands, the issue is of the greatest real-world importance imaginable.

And that’s the answer to JWH’s question (1). The double-standard is best exposed by direct comparison with the “truly endangered” Europeans in the west. Eastern European, like Chinese, have a case, but there are “no real-world implications” in that.

Put the focus where it will count.

Now JWH’s comment (2). Are American voices appropriate in the advocacy of, essentially, Western European rights? Americans can advise, it seems to me. They can be useful. But they cannot bring to bear the moral weight of a native of a denied European people.

Let the protest be that of the wronged.

JWH’s comment (3) returns us to the search for a practical basis on which activism can be mounted. I’ve drawn the assumption that a purely ethical argument voiced by Europeans will fail to gain any traction for all the obvious reasons. Again, JWH’s initial comment about the Chinese shows that he is fully aware of the realities of international politics. So what is being proposed by him here is a latter-day Dieppe Raid - an operationally difficult, high-profile investment of human resources in an unachievable objective for an unquantifiable gain.

It leads me to ask whether we can gain as much, if not more, simply by incorporating the Declaration far more regularly in nationalist advocacy. Here’s why I think that might be so ...

Towards the end of the recent Guardian thread in which the journalist and author Paul Kingsnorth had a run-in with “Nick Nightingale” a commenter named Brandreth posted the following comment about Nick’s earlier employment of good old Article 8:-

The UNs Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which Nick quotes is very interesting and new to me. 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. Cripes. Slam DUNK!

What do you say Mr Kingsnorth? It seems to me that if we look at other times or peoples your answer, like mine, would be automatic.

For example: Was Gandhi right to insist that Indias native peoples had sovereign rights to India as a people, including the right to expel the non-native peoples of Britain?

Or: Is the Dalai Lama racist because he says: I have made it clear that negotiations must centre around ways to end Chinas population transfer policy which threatens the survival of the Tibetan people; …the restoration of control to the Tibetan people of all matters affecting their own affairs…. While repeating the position that China is prepared to negotiate, the Chinese Government continues to seek a final solution to the question of Tibet: the flooding of Tibet with Chinese settlers so as to entirely overpower and assimilate the Tibetan people.

Are Gandi and the Dalai Lama racist Mr Kingsnorth? If they are not, then neither is NickNightingale.

In fact, are not Gandi and the Dalai Lama in taking those positions truly anti-racist? And, maybe, Nick too?

Tags: No particular place to go

Comments:

Posted by j on Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:28 | #

Are you planning to demand that the United Nations protect the prospective European ¨minority¨in the United States?

Who are going to ask? Zimbabwe? South Africa? Iran? North Korea? Pakistan? Venezuela? The Palestinian Authority?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:57 | #

The UN is not protecting the likes of the Amazonian tribes. It is declaring that the Brazilian government must do so. Plainly, the Declaration has the potential to be hardened over time into something more manful. But today its value is political and moral.

Obviously, the principle of Indigenous Rights cannot be extended to non-indigenous populations simply because they are European-descended.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:18 | #

“Are you planning to demand that the United Nations protect the prospective European ¨minority¨in the United States?” - j

JWH over at http://www.westbiop.blogspot.com/ says that the utility of the UN Declaration lies its being used as a “radicalizing education tool.”

In other words, all euphemisms aside, it can be a part of the exoteric presentation that we use to wake up the lemmings. Esoterically, for those elite warriors for the White race, it is a matter of the will.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:31 | #

Universal declarations of land use legitimacy which purport to promote peaceful resolution of conflict must found legitimacy on carrying capacity creation because peace does not limit population. To ignore carrying capacity creation is to demand war and to ignore carrying capacity creation while saying “peace” is to promote war via hypocrisy.

Posted by GT on Sun, 21 Sep 2008 19:55 | #

The American secessionist streak
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ketcham10-2008sep10,0,6298381.story

Posted by GT on Sun, 21 Sep 2008 20:00 | #

“The thing is, it’s not just residents of the Last Frontier [Alaska] who favor breaking away from the Union. According to a Zogby poll conducted in July, more than 20% of U.S. adults—one in five, about the same number of American Colonists who supported revolt against England in 1775—agreed that “any state or region has the right to peaceably secede from the United States and become an independent republic.” Some 18% “would support a secessionist effort in my state.”

“The motivation of these quiet revolutionaries? As many as 44% of those polled agreed that “the United States’ system is broken and cannot be fixed by traditional two-party politics and elections.”

“Put this in stark terms: In a scientific, random sample poll of all Americans, almost half considered the current political system to be in terminal disorder. One-fifth would countenance a dissolution of the bond. This is not a hiccup of opinion. In an October 2006 poll conducted by the Opinion Research Corp. and broadcast on CNN, 71% of Americans agreed that “our system of government is broken and cannot be fixed.”“

Posted by JWH on Sun, 21 Sep 2008 20:14 | #

Reply:
http://westbiop.blogspot.com/2008/09/reply-to-reply.html

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:52 | #

JWH counters my focus on Western Europe with reference to the nascent process of race-replacement in Poland and Russia. That’s no less than I would expect from such a long-standing and ardent pan-European as him. But pan-Europeanism isn’t a value much recognised in nationalist Europe, as the rapid demise of ITS made so evident. Friendship and cooperation exists between Europe’s nativist parties, of course. But their respective remits are strictly national.

What this means is that there is no foundation for a pan-European effort (political pan-Europeanism was and is, of course, a programme of the new elites of post-war Europe). The nationalist carriages are uncoupled, and those at the front of the line (France, Germany, Britain, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Sweden and Spain) where the replacement process is most advanced, and where, by and large, resistance is most established, are the places where one must seek moral and political leadership for any kind of formal nationalist effort on this continent.

I would just add that Russian leadership, with its inbuilt authoritarian expectations, is absolutely to be avoided by all the countries of east and west Europe. We wish mother bear well, but we do not seek to join with her.

The second point I want to make is about the UN. It is a diplomatic body rigidly tied to the foreign ministries and national interests of its member states. Accordingly, it is difficult-to-impossible to address in any kind of organised way, and even to approach. The kind of bodies which have access to it are those in daily contact with its subsidiary arms like UNICEF. So we are talking about local pressure groups, advisory services, quangos, think-tanks ... the whole apparatus of Third Way governance that became so important as the left reinvented itself in and after the Gorbachev era.

These bodies have had many years to build links to the UN bureaucracy. Without the sponsorship of a significant member state, it is highly unlikely that a newcomer to the game with a markedly non-liberal agenda could make any sort of headway.

The question, therefore becomes one of whether JWH’s suggested initiative should actually be targeted at the UN at all. And if it isn’t, how is one to invite the participation of the anthropologists and other specialists required for an on-going programme? There’s no chicken here, and no egg either.

But the confusion is inherent in what JWH is saying:-

The idea of presenting a professionally made document, with all the requisite fanfare, to the globalists, with significant supporters lined up to emphasize how reasonable it all is, and how outrageous the impending UN rejection will be - that’s the way of garnering sufficient attention to take advantage of the propaganda value.

The advocates for those dying Amazonian tribes did not think in terms of propaganda. It was their moral integrity which won them their place in the UN sun. If the job can’t be done in the same spirit by us, we should not be doing it at all. We should be doing something different.

Posted by Dante on Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:05 | #

There’s a white minority in South Africa which could certainly benefit from the above Declaration. The present black government (whose President and Vice President have just been “recalled”) is in clear violation of clauses a) b) and d). Perhaps an international campaign for their rights might bring attention to local issues just over the horizon…

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:08 | #

Dante,

Unless we want to legitimise Africans in Europe, we should stick to the sad view that there are no white Africans.

Posted by JWH on Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:37 | #

I’ll answer here instead of bothering with another WB post.

Well, there’s the small matter of facts. Does the issue of race replacement have a real world consequence in Eastern Europe, or not - that’s the question that I was addressing. The answer is yes. Therefore, the “indigenous” issue applies to Eastern Europe - less urgently perhaps than the West - but nonetheless there. The demographic facts on the ground in Eastern Europe exist independent of whatever my own personal ideology is. Eastern Europeans will no doubt view with suspicion any initiatives which deny the facts of their own demographic decline. It’s one thing to say, “I don’t care about the interests of group ‘x.” It’s quite another to deny the documented facts about what “X’s” situation is.

But pan-Europeanism isn’t a value much recognised in nationalist Europe, as the rapid demise of ITS made so evident.

The connection is not quite clear. Besides confusing descriptive with prescriptive. One may as well say that nationalism itself is not a value much recognized in Europe. Is it then of no value?

Friendship and cooperation exists between Europe’s nativist parties, of course.

Which is what pan-European cooperation is about. I’d like to know where I’ve ever said that such cooperation requires the nationalist parties to ignore more specific interests.

What this means is that there is no foundation for a pan-European effort

It does not follow. Besides, can’t we say the same about a “Western European effort?” Or any effort at all larger than that of single nations?

(political pan-Europeanism was and is, of course, a programme of the new elites of post-war Europe).

Er, no. Globalist pan-Europeanism dates back to a certain Japanese-Austrian mongrel discussed at this blog previously. Nationalist pan-Europeanism - hostile to those “new elites” - dates back, at the latest, to SS Generals Six and Best during WWII, and men such as Yockey and Mosely thereafter. They are not the same thing. Lowell is not a UN globalist technocrat, nor a Brussels lackey.

I would just add that Russian leadership, with its inbuilt authoritarian expectations, is absolutely to be avoided by all the countries of east and west Europe. We wish mother bear well, but we do not seek to join with her.

The Russia question is a separate issue, and one that should be dealt with in detail. Suffice to say that it’ll be a good idea to “recruit” Russia to the West, but that’s another story.

The specialists’ participation would be limited, not on-going. It’s the nationalists who would need to make the on-going case, much the same as they do for such burning issues of the day as “council housing.”

Moral and propaganda are not mutually exclusive. The moral justification is there. The real target is just not the ostensible target. The “white paper” is ostensibly aimed at the UN; it’s real target is elsewhere.

As regards UN access, I have a problem. What’s the use of having, for example, a “right-wing” government in Italy, with participation from the Lega Nord (hardcore EU skeptics) as well as alleged “neo fascists” if they refuse to do a damn thing with the “power” they hold? They can tell UN “race hate conferences” to “go to hell” and they can use their govermental authority to petition the UN regards issues related to preservation.

Of course they, and any other elected nationalists (Austria after 9/28?) won’t do anything. I know this. But it could be done if the will existed. There are people in place who could do it if they wanted to.

The white paper can be publicized as such even if it never gets hand-delivered to the UN.

Is there something else more productive to do?

Posted by silver on Mon, 22 Sep 2008 02:49 | #

Friendship and cooperation exists between Europe’s nativist parties, of course.

Which is what pan-European cooperation is about. I’d like to know where I’ve ever said that such cooperation requires the nationalist parties to ignore more specific interests.

Presenting the issue as “pan-European” breaks the mold of narrow nationalist interests, easing the way for its reception.

Getting the issue on the table as “pan-European” in one country then helps to get it on the table in other countries, much the same way as the much heralded (in nationalist circles) virtuous circle of immigration tightening is theoretically supposed to operate.

Of course, it needs to be tightly delineated so as not to appear as some sort of a cover for more EU-type intrusion.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:26 | #

“Presenting the issue as ‘pan-European’ breaks the mold of narrow nationalist interests” (—Silver)

What’s the justification for calling national interests “narrow”? (Why couldn’t one call them, say, “infinite”?) There is none, any more than there is for calling, let’s say, family interests “narrow.” (Maybe family interests are “infinite” too? What’s “narrow” about family interests?)

National interests are neither too “narrow” nor too “broad” but are “just right in scope” (just right in scope for something which is “national”).

Something which is national is not “narrow” for being that (for being national). By definition, national interests are not international. Not being international does not make them “narrow.” It makes them national, for which they are the right breadth.

Maybe national interests are the right size and international interests are the ones that are “narrow.”

Posted by silver on Mon, 22 Sep 2008 06:42 | #

What’s the justification for calling national interests “narrow”?

Let’s see:

(1) The mainstream—excuse me, “mainstream”—perception.

(2) The history of 20th century Europe.

Posted by Maguire on Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:16 | #

This situation is comparable to a marriage gone irretrievably wrong. Unhappiness alone cannot support a dissolution when economic necessity says otherwise. An economic basis and incentive for dissolving the marital bond must also be present. The secessionists must perceive that they possess adequate resources to carry the project through, or that secession will lead from a situation of inadequate to adequate resources. Otherwise the unhappiness will remained confined to the region of words.

In the present era true independence - sovereignty - of any polity depends on two prime material factors. The first is fuel and energy independence. The second is military independence.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:37 | #

Well, this is getting interesting.

JWH writes: Does the issue of race replacement have a real world consequence in Eastern Europe, or not - that’s the question that I was addressing. The answer is yes

Poland has exported maybe a million of her young people to Western European countries, so for that reason you are right. But how many Third Worlders has it actually taken in thus far? Not too many, I think. Here’s what Lena Kolarska-Bobi?ska, director of the Warsaw Institute of Public Affairs, thinks about immigration to Poland (dated less than a month ago):-

“We need ... to facilitate access for immigrants. Many European countries have already done this. This must be coupled with measures to promote the integration of newcomers. I am not talking here about refugees, who are equated with immigrants nowadays, but about opening up the country to people who want to settle in Poland for economic reasons. The most promising approach would be to open up to our Eastern neighbours because their integration is likely to be comparatively easy.”

But, anyway, the issue is one of leadership, not exclusion. Let’s suppose that only nationalists from Poland and the Baltic states attempted to mount an effort in the UN. Would it really carry the same moral weight as an effort led by Germany + France + Britain + Holland + Belgium, where the moral offence is so deep and ethnic submersion so much more imminent?

JWH writes: [Friendship and cooperation] is what pan-European cooperation is about

No, pan-Europeanism is not simple friendship. It is a challenge to the European nation state, centred, for the most part, upon identity - the argument being that popular allegiance should be transferred to the supra-national entity.

I realise that you are theorising from a position of promulgating genetic interests. But we are debating the wisdom of a political initiative here, and politics imposes its own meanings which you ignore at the peril of your intellectual marginalisation.

And before you accuse me of wilfully misinterpreting the Salterism you espouse, any pan-Europeanism not specifically channelled and controlled by firm nationalist sentiment and enslaved to the principle of democratic accountability at the lowest practical level will drift towards accumulation of power beyond the nation, and towards empire. Norman’s would too, notwithstanding his own clear strictures on the subject.

The truth is, it’s the nature of Man to gather to himself, as an individual, whatever royal inflation he can. It is ineradicable, and a curse of human life. The only counterweight to it is a pure politics of nation.

JWH writes: The specialists’ participation would be limited, not on-going.

Here’s a description from the usual suspects at Wikipedia of how the Declaration came into being:-

The Declaration was over 22 years in the making. The idea originated in 1982 when the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) set up its Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP), established as a result of a study by Special Rapporteur José R. Martínez Cobo on the problem of discrimination faced by indigenous peoples. Tasked with developing human rights standards that would protect indigenous peoples, in 1985 the Working Group began working on drafting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The draft was finished in 1993 and was submitted to the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, which gave its approval the following year.

The Draft Declaration was then referred to the Commission on Human Rights, which established another Working Group to examine its terms. Over the following years this Working Group met on 11 occasions to examine and fine-tune the Draft Declaration and its provisions. Progress was slow because of certain states’ concerns regarding some key provisions of the Declaration, such as indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and the control over natural resources existing on indigenous peoples’ traditional lands. The final version of the Declaration was adopted on 29 June 2006 by the 47-member Human Rights Council (the successor body to the Commission on Human Rights), with 30 member states in favour, two against, 12 abstentions, and three absentees.

The Declaration was then referred to the General Assembly, which voted on the adoption of the proposal on 13 September 2007 during its 61st regular session. The vote was 143 countries in favour, four against, and 11 abstaining. The four member states that voted against were Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, each of which have significant indigenous populations. The abstaining countries were Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine; another 34 member states were absent from the vote.

“22 years in the making”! And that with the threat to the existence of the UN’s pet indigenes firmly on the radar. Of note is the fact that part, at least, of the structure required to advance the process had to be specially created. Ideologically, “a fair wind” doesn’t begin to describe the assistance the “idea originated in 1982” received.

So it is apparent that, for our idea (that European indigenes cannot just be treated by their own governments as non-existent entities without fundamental rights and interests) to receive any kind of hearing, many entrenched attitudes would have to be challenged and new understandings fostered.

In other words, the limited goal of extending official indigenous status to Europeans (and other indigenous populations) is dependent upon the making of a much deeper and characteristically nationalist political case. What we are talking about here isn’t a limited foray into the heart of bureaucratic internationalism with a bit of paper drawn up by some “specialists”, but a sustained and quite revolutionary assault on the philosophical underpinnings of the modern world. In the same way that the commander of an army cannot commit a single company to fight the battalions of the foe, you can’t have a limited endeavour against the hostile ideology of the UN - the toxicity of nationalism to liberal internationalism, and vice versa, does not allow it.

We can never get away from this necessity to think anew and holistically, whether we are Judeophobes, German recedivists, race-realists or any other kind of mono-thematic nationalist.

JWH writes: Is there something else more productive to do?

Yes. You are doing something intellectually useful now, of course. But there will be more. We are not going to stand still for much longer.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:36 | #

Here‘s that Zogby opinion poll.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:38 | #

(What I found most interesting was the 44% who said the U.S. system was broken and couldn’t be fixed by the current two-party system. 44%!)

Posted by j on Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:30 | #

The idea has certain potential as propaganda and educational instrument. It has to be formulated by a specialist in international law, and submitted by some kind of legitimate representative organization. The document should be able to demonstrate that the minority is being discriminated against by the Government, its native culture supressed and outlawed, its genetic composition modified by force (mass rape), or something like that. In the case of American Whites it will difficult to build a credible case, moreover when there are many potentially competing claims by other minorities such as American Indians, American Africans, Californian and Texan Old Mexicans, etc. In my opinion, the idea is not feasible and it may backfire.

On the other hand, it could be feasible to formulate a case for the Zimbabwean white minority, and submit it by an American or and International European Ethnic Consorcium, because the local whites are too frightened and opressed to talk for themselves.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:45 | #

Since the UN wants to give the impression of being a world government, it is obviously the case that Euros are a “minority”—with all the triggered clauses following.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:14 | #

Off the top of my head, the following case, which does not require proofs of violence, could conceivably be made:-

8.2(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.

Inward population transfers have set this effect in train. For example, Britain in the 1950s was not ethnically the same as it is today, and the British desire to prevent or halt this process has been opposed in law and through other politically oppressive means.

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

Inward population transfers have precisely this effect. Immigrant populations do not increase our land area. We cede land in the form of private property (white flight).

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

Holocaustism and the teaching of a culturally-marxised version of our history have this effect.

Posted by JWH on Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:32 | #

Well, this is getting interesting.

Actually, it’s not. What I read below is shocking.

Gee, what happens to the frequent MR admonition to view race replacement as a process rather than a snapshot? Does that admonition not hold to the east of Berlin?

Here’s what Lena Kolarska-Bobi?ska, director of the Warsaw Institute of Public Affairs, thinks about immigration to Poland (dated less than a month ago):-

“We need ... to facilitate access for immigrants. Many European countries have already done this. This must be coupled with measures to promote the integration of newcomers. I am not talking here about refugees, who are equated with immigrants nowadays, but about opening up the country to people who want to settle in Poland for economic reasons. The most promising approach would be to open up to our Eastern neighbours because their integration is likely to be comparatively easy.”

So, non-Polish European immigration into Poland is OK?

But, anyway, the issue is one of leadership, not exclusion.

No, the issue is saying that a people are not demographically threatened when they are.

And before you accuse me of wilfully misinterpreting the Salterism you espouse…

You are, and it’s shocking. After 7-8 years of trying to make my position as clear as possible, the founder of a blog that I have previously posted on frequently completely misrepresents my position. Perhaps the fault is mine, and I need to go back to first principles and explain the basics. That’ll be done at WB; not here.

We are not going to stand still for much longer.

The “movement” has been standing still for decades, and will continue to do so.

Posted by GT on Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:35 | #

The secessionists must perceive that they possess adequate resources to carry the project through, or that secession will lead from a situation of inadequate to adequate resources…In the present era true independence - sovereignty - of any polity depends on two prime material factors. The first is fuel and energy independence. The second is military independence.

Military independence requires production ability. Riflemen are insufficient. The ability to produce squad- and platoon-level weapons - .50 caliber machine guns, grenade launchers, antitank weaponry - is an extremely high priority. Suitable tools of this ty[e can be produced in machine shops.

Posted by Robert Reis on Tue, 23 Sep 2008 02:41 | #

http://ireland.corrupt.org/
20 September 2008
Ireland loves Africa

Refugees from Tanzania are to be resettled in Ireland under a UN program. Minister for (dis)Integration Conor Lenihan and officials are to travel to the West African country next month to finalise details.

The Tanzania refugees, who are expected to arrive in Ireland in coming months, will be resettled in a town selected by the Office of Integration after detailed local consultation. The families will then take part in an orientation programme to help them to adjust to Irish life.

Irish Aid has committed €40m in bilateral funding to Tanzania in 2008. !!!

Irish Examiner

hmm… I wonder what the reasoning behind all this is? Perhaps it was the cultural similarities between Ireland and Africa, that would help make the adjustment of a dispossessed people to a new land relatively painless? Or the geographic nearness and similarity of climate? nah, perhaps its moneymoneymoneymoney.

The motivation of the government et al is to bring over 3rd worlders for cheap labour purposes. For the average Irish person putting their hand in their pocket giving out the huge sums of money in aid and charity it’s a misguided altruistic gesture, that allows them to feel good about themselves for “saving the world” - in spite of the fact they are doing Africa no real favours and are unwittingly turning their own country into an overstretched, multi-ethnic powderkeg. And the motivation of many Africans? To get an easy ride out of some witless Europeans who don’t ask too many questions because they’re too busy focusing on their own selfish motives.

——

Last week, the figures appeared for the numbers of people receiving full state-subsidy for rental accommodation in Ireland. Nearly 40pc of them are immigrants. Most of these are EU nationals, and are entitled by law to the same benefits as are Irish nationals.

the British are top of the league of foreigners who are claiming rent allowance. And this is not surprising, for they are also the most numerous foreign group, numbering some 112,000, according to the 2006 census.

Second in the list of foreign groups availing of free accommodation, courtesy of the State, are who? Citizens of fellow EU states, such as the Poles, the Latvians, the Czechs or Slovaks? No, indeed not. The people who come second in the rent-allowance league table are the Nigerians—with 3,024 claimants. But whereas the British figure constitutes just 2.7pc of the total population of Britons living here, the figure for Nigerians is 18.6pc of their total Irish population of 16,300. Alas, just how many more Nigerian dependents are the beneficiaries of the rent allowances that are being granted to the 3,024 family-heads, I cannot say.

Now this reliance upon the state for the accommodation of so many Nigerians reflects another rather uncomfortable truth which was revealed in the 2006 census, but which has never—so far as I know—been highlighted in the media. It is this: contrary to almost all predictions about the impact of immigrants upon an economy, a majority of Nigerians are not economically active at all. For even at the height of the boom, in 2006, only 38pc over the age of 15 were at work.

Why are so many people, from a country to which we have no moral or legal or historical obligations, living off this state? Why are they being allowed through immigration, if they have no jobs to go to? Why are they choosing to come to Ireland, when 20 countries or more lie between their homeland and ourselves? And finally, and perhaps most important of all, why is no one else asking why? Is it because we are too polite? Too timid? Too stupid? Too scared about being called racist? Which is all very well, but such intellectual and emotional repression does not usually end benignly.

Posted by R CROSS on Sat, 27 Sep 2008 21:50 | #

In december 2007, i submitted a complaint to the un under the terms of undrip as no-one else seemed remotely interested in offering support or assistance with weilding the best weapon to come our way for years,needless to say i have been totally ignored,not even an aknowledgement,but as a peasant with little status and even less credibility it was what i expected.
Now i alight upon your page and find that any action from those more capable than i,is still in the initial stages of hot air and scoring intelectual points,while the needs of our people is pressing,in fact in a few more years thier plight will become an irrelevance,irritrevable and final,when is any-one prepared to take any action?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:55 | #

R CROSS,

What you did was admirable, and you are to be congratulated upon it. If the UN won’t acknowledge your loyal action, your peers certainly will.

The bickering here, if that’s how it seems, is only about whether an action perhaps involving third-party specialists who do not hold strong nationalist views can be justified as a propaganda exercise, or whether it must be taken “for real”. If the latter ... if we accept that those who are willing to lend help have to be met with honourable intentions, then there is much that needs to be done before any submission to the UN. If, however, political propaganda is the sole consideration, it’s a different matter.

I guess at heart I don’t like going into battle knowing that the ammunition doesn’t fit, and the only point of it all is to make capital out of another splendid defeat. But then, I’m not a politician.

Maybe the idea should be taken up by Europe’s nationalist parties, and a cooperation put together. Or maybe bickering would kill that, too!

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 28 Sep 2008 00:04 | #

Re Ireland.

There is a good chance that many of those listed as British in Ireland are themselves of Irish origin. I would be interested to know if there are more detailed figures to back that up.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 28 Sep 2008 06:17 | #

From the <u>Jews Rejoice As Euros Are Filled With Foreboding</u> department:

I thought your readers would be interested in the future of America, as seen through the eyes of my 6-year-old son. He just started first-grade in a public school in the [San Francisco] Bay Area. The city was reported to be 40 percent white during the last census.

During the first days of school, we went to a large mega-mart in the neighborhood to pick up supplies. Out of the nowhere, my son said to me: “Mom, I think I’m the only blue-eyed boy in my class.” He said it very matter-of-factly, as if he’d just thought of it. In fact, my son is the only blond blue-eyed kid in his classroom.

I don’t know what triggered my son’s observation. Perhaps it is the fact that when we do look around these days, we stick out as the only fair-skinned, light-haired people in a sea of black hair. Most of the time we don’t pay attention to this, but when we do notice it, it is quite jarring to realize that we are already minorities.

According to the 2000 Census, my town was 45 percent white in 2000. The 2006 estimate is 32 percent. My personal projection for 2010 is that whites will be 25 percent.

My husband, a professional with advanced academic degrees summed it up: “Forced diversity only makes people self-segregate into their own groups.”

My question: where do California native-born European whites with conservative viewpoints on immigration find their own? We’re surrounded by ultra-liberal whites who parrot the politically correct diversity-speak. They shun conservatives. Even though we have non-Caucasian friends, certain topics are off limits — specifically, immigration.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments