‘Plaintive’ Nationalism and the appeal to legality
A hundred years ago, English labourism lost its soul and began an ideological shift from a movement that existed to defend the interests of working people to becoming a movement that defended the interests of capitalists. This ‘betrayal’ was inevitable, but to the outsider it is difficult to discern. What Labour did after the War does not look like betrayal. The Labour Party built the welfare state, including the NHS, and later on, under the Blair government, introduced a statutory minimum wage. These have the appearance of pro-white accomplishments, in that they advanced the economic interests of the greater part of the indigenous population, but the reality is quite different: economic inequality in our society is greater than ever, and the indigenous peoples of these Islands and of Europe are under attack from mass non-white immigration. We can see that in truth, the very policies that were said to be designed to promote the interests of the working classes – the NHS, the welfare state, social security, the minimum wage – have been turned and used to destroy the indigenous folk, so that any talk of ‘working class’ interests has become meaningless. We now have the sense of a great, individuated mass of consumers of different races and ethnicities who share no common social interest other than to spend, spend, spend.
The Labour Party is simply nothing more than the Red Capitalist Party. The Conservative Party – the Blue Capitalists – also played their part, bringing this country into the then-EEC, helping to destroy manufacturing industry (which Labour governments also had a hand in), and attacking everything from trade unions to marriage and the family, while helping to legalise buggery. These Conservative policies were also presented as tacitly pro-white, though in a different sense in that they were meant to be in the interests of the country or represent some abstract liberal shibboleth rather than the working class or any other social class per se. In reality, both parties were serving a different, invisible constituency that controls and owns the significant economic interests in the West. Both parties, at different times, presented themselves as implicitly ‘white nationalist’, and then later as just civically ‘nationalist’, but they were no more nationalist than the Soviet Union was ‘communist’ and Britain is no more a nation than Ian Paisley is a Roman Catholic.
Behind all the liberal blather, what we can surmise is that the North Atlantic island territory off the coast of mainland Europe known as ‘Britain’ is simply an administrative unit of global capitalism, fundamentally technocratic in character, and largely controlled by Jewish interests. The ‘nationalism’ that is, varyingly, promoted, castigated and demonised, exists to promote the interests of Jews and rich whites. Somewhere else, out beyond the back of beyond, are the real flesh and blood interests of the European folk, at the moment unseen, but working for a real alternative. So-called ‘nationalist’ governments will rise and fall – Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, perhaps UKIP, perhaps even the BNP, and their equivalents around Europe – but they will never represent the indigenous peoples, and will never resemble authentic white politics. Instead, they serve an alien racial and ethnic interest.
I came to this realisation gradually, for I was once a ‘plaintiff’ of the system, holding conventional Marxoid centre-left political views. The irony of my life is that in some respects I am still probably one of the most ‘left-wing’ and instinctively metropolitan people you could find, but what turned me away from the political Left was the experience of discussing politics with actual left-wingers. Over the course of the last 20 years, a movement that was supposed to represent the interests of ordinary people has become increasingly shrill and immoderate in its determination to serve instead the interests of Jews and other non-whites. I realised this through a process of debate and discussion with these ‘socialists’ and ‘liberals’. My awakening began at university, in the febrile anti-intellectual atmosphere of the Student Union, which would be one of my most formative political experiences. I remember two incidents on my very first day – bullying, politically-correct notices around the Student Union building warning innocent students against what was known as racism, sexism, and about half-a-dozen other ‘isms’; and, an unpleasant encounter with an hysterical, screeching, left-wing (female) student. Until then, to me, being ‘left-wing’ meant something more innocent – it was to do with things like standing up for the working class, strikes, ending poverty, democratic socialism, ‘Let Us Face The Future’ and so on. I knew there were some ‘strange’ people in the Labour Party with socially liberal views that were somewhat out-of-kilter with the mainstream, but I had always regarded them as something of an harmless joke – they were eccentrics. I had not appreciated the extent of their influence.
Over the ensuing years I built a career, family and a business and began to settle into a ‘normal’ life. I took a vague, passing interest in politics, remaining left-wing by instinct and sometimes attending local Labour Party meetings while increasing disliking what I was seeing. The left-wing eccentrics I had first encountered at university had taken power and used it to implement an extreme metropolitan agenda. I worried for the future of my children, and so gradually I became a ‘Nationalist by default’ (or rather, awoke to that position). (See my essay: ‘The Dumbest People Ever: the nazification of whiteness‘). The first thing that the newly-awakened, naive Nationalist does, in many cases, is adopt the position of ‘reasonableness’. This is the starting point for what I call ‘Plaintive’ Nationalism, the outlook of “look let’s be reasonable” or in its more sophisticated form, appeals to law, and such like. For me, it began at university, in political discussions with an Asian student that sometimes turned heated, but were always friendly. Being a nice person (which, alas, I am – I’m a big softie), I would say to people, online and in the real world: “Look, let’s be reasonable about this”, before setting out a balanced position that pointed to what I saw as the ‘inalienable’ right of the ethnic English to racial and cultural integrity. Of course, I was wrong about this, and in any case, in my experience that kind of approach to argument doesn’t really work. My problem is that I thought I understood the Left – it was, after all, my spiritual home – but I didn’t (or not as well as I had assumed). I just didn’t know these people. They are authoritarian by instinct and they have crushed us because we have been plaintive and reasonable.
I realised this (or began to realise it) at 18, yet some people who have been in Nationalism all their lives still think they can persuade our opponents (enemies) to be ‘reasonable’. Or they think we can appeal to law in much the same way that a murderer with blood on his hands might appeal to the ‘reasonableness’ of a judge on the basis that he ‘didn’t mean it’ and, besides, he’ll ‘never do it again’. Our non-white opponents have been genetically primed for their task and will not shirk from it. Our white opponents – liberals of both the Left and Right – serve a specific interest and, whether they realise it or not, they have been brainwashed and trained (the more highly-educated, the better) to react like snapping dogs to any deviation from the linguistically-correct narratives. This is not about ‘making a case’. The game is already stacked against us. The only thing the law exists for is as a tool for enforcing the wishes of the ruling or dominant elements in society. Perhaps the reason I see this more clearly than most is because of my Marxist background, in that I can see the system for what it is and I am not weighted-down with the soppy liberal mental crutches that many others in the movement might struggle to shake off.
What I call ‘Plaintive’ Nationalism is an intellectual disease that afflicts all Nationalists from time-to-time – including the author. Of course, some of the more prominent people in Nationalism have long been making a good living out of its close cousin: ‘liberal’ national-socialism. (See my essay: ‘David Duke and ‘liberal’ national-socialism‘). In this older, more common (and arguably more insidious) version of the disease, the politician or activist shows a variety of symptoms, which can include an alarming ideological regression and a tendency to spout liberal babble on command, especially concerning emotive subjects such as Gaza, of which the sufferer is largely ignorant. Prospects for the patient are normally quite good, as there is a tendency to ‘snap out of it’ or to forget about it once the media move on to some other distraction, like celebrity paedophiles.
Plaintive Nationalism is a slightly different condition, though closely-related. It involves the Nationalist using ‘human rights’ or some other legal fiction as a crutch for his arguments and there is also a propensity for sufferers to contract ‘leader syndrome‘ and think some demagogue or other will be our salvation and ‘close all the borders’. Typically, reference will be made to things such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the UN Genocide Convention, or maybe the domestic Human Rights Act, or whatever. On the face of it, some of these legal fictions (known technically as treaties, international conventions and Acts of Parliament) do look promising. For instance, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has this to say (among other things):-
Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.
1. Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of person.
2. Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly removing children of the group to another group.
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.
Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right to belong to an indigenous community or nation, in accordance with the traditions and customs of the community or nation concerned. No discrimination of any kind may arise from the exercise of such a right.
Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (commonly-known as the UN Genocide Convention) defines ‘genocide’ as follows:-
any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is relatively recent, dating back only a few years. It’s main flaw is its complete absence of any fixed definition of what is an ‘indigenous people’, though readers of this blog can be left in no doubt that, in almost-all cases, white peoples and their various ethnies will not be considered to have indigeneity in the legal sense of this Declaration. Confirmation of this can be found in the various UN policy papers that pre-date and underpin the Declaration and discussions on the nature and characteristics of indigeneity among academic and policy experts. For instance, Jose R. Martinez Cobo, the Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities [mouthful!], in his 1986 Study on the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations, had this to offer as a definition of “indigenous communities, peoples and nations”:
Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system.
“This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present of one or more of the following factors:
- Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them;
- Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands;
- Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.);
- Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language);
- Residence on certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world;
- Other relevant factors.
On an individual basis, an indigenous person is one who belongs to these indigenous populations through self-identification as indigenous (group consciousness) and is recognized and accepted by these populations as one of its members (acceptance by the group).
This preserves for these communities the sovereign right and power to decide who belongs to them, without external interference”.
Of course, this definition could potentially include some specific, limited categories of white people, and even possibly white people in the future, but it is clear that the international legal conceptualisation of ‘indigenous peoples’ does not include significant white populations that are under ‘peaceful’ and ‘democratic’ assault from mixed-racial ideology. In fact, these international legal conventions are designed to aid the attack on whites in their own countries.
As for the Genocide Convention, this emerged in the aftermath of the Second World War. The official story is that the Convention was intended to establish a legal basis for preventing any repeat of the genocide supposedly perpetrated by the ‘Nazis’. The reality is a little more murky than this. The term ‘genocide’ is a neologism invented by Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who combined the Greek genos (γένος), “race, people” and the Latin cīdere “to kill”. Lemkin first coined the term in his 1944 book, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation – Analysis of Government – Proposals for Redress. At the time the book was written, there was no evidence of ‘genocide’ by the Axis powers, and certainly none from Lemkin, who devotes a whole chapter of the book to defining the term ‘genocide’ but makes no specific reference to ‘gas chambers’ (that would come in his later writing).
In a section of the book titled ‘Mass Killing’, Lemkin writes:
3. Mass Killing. The technique of mass killings is employed mainly against Poles, Russians, and Jews, as well as against leading personalities from among the non-collaborationist groups in all the occupied countries. In Poland, Bohemia-Moravia, and Slovenia, the intellectuals are being “liquidated” because they have always been considered as the main bearers of [p. 89] national ideals and at the time of occupation they were especially suspected of being the organizers of resistance. The Jews for the most part are liquidated within the ghettos, (45) or in special trains in which they are transported to a so-called “unknown” destination. The number of Jews who have been killed by organized murder in all the occupied countries, according to the Institute of Jewish Affairs of the American Jewish Congress in New York, amounts to 1,702,500.
Given that this was written in 1944, the figure of 1.7 million, while significant, would and could not be consistent with the claim that by 1945 the ‘Nazis’ would systematically kill a total of six million Jews, but whatever the truth of that, Lemkin had no proof for his claims. If he wanted actual, concrete examples of genocidal acts, he might have more fruitfully called on Allied actions in the War. Nevertheless, it was on the Holocaust premise and in the aftermath of the Nuremberg Tribunals, that Lemkin pressured the United Nations to adopt a Genocide Convention.
What is interesting about Lemkin is that although he was patently a politicised Jew, he was nonetheless a firm opponent of the Soviet Union, to the extent that he would also have wanted its leaders’ actions brought within the ambit of this ‘genocide’ concept. During the 1950s, Lemkin was prominent in condemnation of the ‘genocide’ of Ukranians as a result of the Soviet forced programme of collectivisation during the 1930s. Lemkin had settled in the United States after the Second World War, and we can surmise that much of his hostility to the Soviet Union was motivated by the Cold War tensions between the two so-called superpowers. One might speculate that the real reason for the popularity of the ‘genocide’ concept was that it provided a propaganda weapon for the United States against the Soviet Union.
Lemkin’s definition of ‘genocide’ is quite broad, encompassing not just the type of violent acts that might conventionally be considered genocide, but also political, social, cultural, economic, biological, religious and moral attacks on a people. The following is taken from Chapter IX of Axis Rule in Occupied Europe:
Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.”
“Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor. This imposition, in turn, may be made upon the oppressed population which is allowed to remain or upon the territory alone, after removal of the population and the colonization by the oppressor’s own nationals.”
Lemkin’s expansive definition of ‘genocide’ could comfortably include a planned programme of ‘mass immigration’ and multi-culturalism should that be shown to pose a threat to the existence of the native ethnic populations of a territory. In October 2009, a former Labour speechwriter, Andrew Neather, wrote an article entitled ‘Don’t listen to the whingers – London needs more immigrants‘, in which he is reputed to have revealed that the mass non-white immigration into Britain that took place under Labour was designed and planned for political and ideological reasons favouring Labour and the Left. The article itself does contain these passages:
What’s missing is not only a sense of the benefits of immigration but also of where it came from.
It didn’t just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year, when the Government introduced a points-based system, was to open up the UK to mass migration.
mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date. That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far.
Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing. For despite Roche’s keenness to make her big speech and to be upfront, there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour’s core white working-class vote.
Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.
But ministers wouldn’t talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.
In part, too, it would have been just too metropolitan an argument to make in such places: London was the real model. Roche was unusual in that she was a London MP, herself of east European Jewish stock.
The difficulty is that these comments of Neather’s have been taken out of context. My suspicion is that most people who have commented on this article have not actually read it, but it is worth reading, for Neather’s position is that of the typical metropolitan centre-left commentator. He is not criticising mass immigration or highlighting its problems. Quite the opposite. Neather is a pro-genocide enthusiast. His only apology, presumably, would be that there has not been more of it, while the only regret he expresses in this article is about the reticence of Labour ministers in making a ‘positive’ case for mass immigration and in communicating its supposed ‘benefits’. Neather wants more immigration, not less:
The results in London, and especially for middle-class Londoners, have been highly positive. It’s not simply a question of foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners – although frankly it’s hard to see how the capital could function without them.
Their place certainly wouldn’t be taken by unemployed BNP voters from Barking or Burnley – fascist au pair, anyone? Immigrants are everywhere and in all sorts of jobs, many of them skilled.
My family’s east European former nannies, for example, are model migrants, going on to be a social worker and an accountant. They have integrated into London society.
But this wave of immigration has enriched us much more than that. A large part of London’s attraction is its cosmopolitan nature.
It is so much more international now than, say, 15 years ago, and so much more heterogeneous than most of the provinces, that it’s pretty much unimaginable for us to go back either to the past or the sticks.
Field and Soames complain about schools where English is not the first language for many pupils.
But in my children’s south London primary school, the international influence is primarily the large numbers of (mostly middle-class) bilingual children, usually with one parent married to a Brit.
My children have half- or wholly Spanish, Italian, Swiss, Austrian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Congolese, Chinese and Turkish classmates.
London’s role as a magnet for immigration busted wide open the stale 1990s clichés about multiculturalism: it’s a question of genuine diversity now, not just tacking a few Afro-Caribbean and Bengali events on to a white British mainstream. It’s one of the reasons Paris now tends to look parochial to us.
Neather concludes the article with these comments:
I hope it’s not too late now, post-Question Time, for London to make the case for migration.
Of course we’re too small a country to afford an open door – but, by the same token, if the immigrants dry up, this city and this country will become a much poorer and less interesting place. Why is it so hard for Gordon Brown to say that?
Having now read the article in full and contextualised it, we can see clearly that Neather’s comments were meant to be pro-immigration. He favours Lemkin-type genocide of the English (and by extension) the wider British peoples. Indeed, what we see here in Neather’s infamous words is a summary of an official government policy to extinguish the English people. We can also see that, far from being honest, Neather was seeking to rationalise the dishonesty of his political masters. It is understandable that the reader might feel outrage and anger at the complacency and sheer stupidity of people like Neather, but it is important to understand that Neather’s own thesis of what happened with immigration is largely inaccurate.
Although Neather is describing genocide and justifying it, this is ‘acceptable genocide’ and Neather’s words and Lemkin’s conceptualisation of ‘mass-killing’ simply serve as a cloak behind which to hide the truth. Far from being enlightening, the ‘Jewish genocide narrative’ serves to obfuscate and hide some important facts. Had Neather or some other liberal journalist been writing an article on ‘unacceptable genocide’ – say, what is happening in Gaza, for instance – this too would have represented a cloak of obfuscation, hiding the reality that (as in Gaza) one race will fight for its existence against another, the purpose of this obfuscation being to discourage the average white person from considering how their own racial existence might be under threat. The ‘Holocaust’ is an important example in the genre: it is ‘unacceptable genocide’ and thus can be stated as such, and in so doing obfuscates and distracts whites from a consideration of their racial interests, instead encouraging a mental association between normal racial loyalty and notions of conscience, guilt and liberal moral responsibility.
The Jewish-influenced right-wing have, of course, made great play of Neather’s supposed ‘confessional’, but in reality his article is of little value. Neather is as deluded about Labour’s actual responsibility for immigration and its causes as he is about the issue of immigration per se. Like almost everyone else, Neather assumes that governments somehow cause immigration or can control it. This is largely a fantasy, but a lot of people believe it – and some people even base their views on it. This is where the Plaintive Nationalist errors in his thinking. He thinks that the solution is ‘better people’ in power who will use ‘laws’ to ‘close the border’. He ignores, or does not understand, that there are larger and wider forces at work which are causing this immigration and which no government can really control without fundamental change in society. The reason he ignores this or does not understand is because he gets his information from a media that is controlled by the people (mostly Jews) who are responsible for this immigration in the first place. As difficult as it may be for right-wingers to accept, the truth is that the wave of mass immigration brought about under Labour at the turn of the century would – most probably – also have happened under the Conservatives or UKIP or practically any other political party. Immigration is the result of globalisation and economics. That is not to say that the political character of different governments is completely irrelevant. Had the Conservatives won the 1997 election, the rate of immigration might have been slower simply because there is more of an inclination within the Conservative Party, and therefore more pressure, to maintain stringent immigration controls, etc. (or the appearance of such), but the point is that the general trend would have been in the same direction and we would have faced more or less the same problems.
Incidentally, some Nationalists might make the mistake of thinking that the ‘larger and wider’ forces that I refer to above include the European Union. Our membership of the EU, and its existence, has certainly had an impact in that it makes it easier for people to come here due to the lack of border controls between member countries, but these people would come here anyway in much the same numbers, whether we were in or out of the EU. Indeed, we began our first major wave of non-white immigration at a time before the EU’s predecessor organisation even existed. But what really demolishes the anti-EU argument is the awkward fact that even those European countries that are outside the EU still suffer mass non-white immigration – including Iceland, Switzerland and Norway (especially Norway, which is suffering badly). The reasons for this are not often discussed, but what they boil down to is that the pressures from lobbyists and international organisations, as well as normal economic and social forces, that are brought to bear on EU policy-makers are also brought down on the governments of countries outside the EU. Leaving the EU is really a fake argument and a distraction. That is not to say that I favour the UK staying in the EU – in fact, on this question, as on so many others, I am neutral. That’s because whether my country is run by capitalist Jews in Frankfurt (the EU is a project of German capitalists) or capitalist Jews in London would seem to make little difference to me. I do admire the altruism of whites who show such concern for the financial interests of Jews – it’s touching and I know the rabbis are grateful – but it doesn’t interest me frankly. But I mention all this just so that the matter can be put in its proper perspective.
Now that we have concluded that detour on Europe, let us get back to the subject of Mr. Neather. Let us – just for the sake of argument – accept and adopt the assumptions of the Plaintive Nationalist: that Andrew Neather is not just a kind of sad Walter Mitty character with a penchant for Chinese takeaways, but in fact a giant of public affairs whose speech-writing has achieved what King Canute could not and shifted the demographics of a nation. Let us also assume (contrary to the observable facts) that governments control immigration, and let us assume furthermore that Labour* [*we could substitute any party here] could have had a significant impact on immigration either way. This is magical realism, but let’s go along with it. The reality is that even in that environment, no matter how much we might wish it, no Nationalist government worthy of that description could achieve power in the Britain of today. At best, a fake nationalist party – like UKIP – might achieve some level of influence.
But let us take the assumption still further and imagine that a real Racial Nationalist party somehow manages to achieve power or important influence under social and political conditions similar to those at present: i.e. in a mixed-racial society. I would suggest that such a party would be crippled from the start, and in fact if anything would serve the purposes of those who would have put it there and want it to fail. Plaintive Nationalists, who support the legal route to ‘power’ might argue that a Nationalist government would be able to re-shape the social, political and legal environment to favour Nationalism, but this ignores the way in which changes in society occur, over generations and due not just to political activity, but changes in technology, culture and social attitudes. All these factors are ‘liberal’ at the moment, not ‘racial’. An incongruous Racial Nationalist government would face popular opposition on all sides. The Plaintive Nationalists might point to the legal fictions I mentioned at the outset – the Genocide Convention, the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the like, and argue that these could be invoked to defend the legitimacy of the new Racial Nationalist government. I have already explained why these documents would not serve white interests and are not designed to, and in fact exist to serve anti-white interests and to be used against us in our own countries.
It is also worth reflecting that UN treaties and conventions are of no legal effect in and of themselves, but are a touchstone for the interests and priorities of the nation-states that sign up to them. That being the case, in a mixed-racial environment, the weight of international opinion would be brought down on any government that attempted to re-assert white indigenous interests in their countries. Such a country, if alone (Serbia in the 1990s, and in our time Greece, Austria, the Ukraine are as close as we have to examples of this) would be designated a bandit state and face sanctions and threats of international military intervention. The reason for this is not because of some sinister ‘New World Order’ plot, but due to the interests that the international legal order serves. It is a Jewish invention for the purpose of breaking down the old legacy nation-states after the War, largely because they were centred around discrete ethnic identities.
A number of years ago, when I was first starting to express doubts about this multiculturalism concept (I’d long had private misgivings about it), I naively put the plaintive ‘legalistic’ arguments to the lefties and their response was one of:-
(i). RHETORIC – are you a race hater/racist, etc.?
(ii). EVASION – blank me and ignore the point, or obfuscate in some other way;
(iii). SOCIOLOGY – argue that whites are not an oppressed group and so don’t qualify for these protections, or even if we are oppressed (or being targeted in some way), we don’t deserve to be protected;
(iv). REALITY DENIAL – there is no threat to the white race;
(v). RACE DENIAL – race doesn’t exist as a valid concept anyway, we’re all from Africa, etc. blah, blah.
What all these blind alleys serve to demonstrate is that the real purpose of international law isn’t the positivistic ideal presented of ‘human rights’, ‘liberty’, ‘equality’ and ‘democracy’, and so on and so forth. Just like any other man-made construct, the canon of international law exists to serve an interest or group of interests. The reason this is not appreciated is that most people do not want to think about how ideas and institutions have one or more racial and economic interests behind them. These interests are not always allied or aligned, and are sometimes in conflict, and it is also important to understand that the people who do this, including the Jews, are not ‘evil’ and are not necessarily acting maliciously. But an overall logic can be identified by looking at the impact of the executive institutions involved. International law exists to destroy national sovereignty and replace it with ‘international sovereignty’ for Jews and other capitalists. That’s not the same as the NWO thesis, which in my view is nutty, and I am not personally a subscriber to the idea of a ‘Jewish cabal’. The global elite are not unified and are not working consciously, their motivations are varied, and their interests mainly centre around narrow commercial and economic concerns. However in the process (intentionally or not) they also serve the ethnic interests of Jews, who remain (largely) a distinct ethno-religious group with a powerful political and business lobby and a distinct culture which encourages its own replication through the recognition and assertion of group interests.
To my mind, it follows that to engage in this ‘rights-based’ narrative so liked by the Plaintive Nationalists – be it attacking Israeli actions in Gaza or going cap in hand to Jews for our ‘white rights’ – ultimately just serves to legitimise the very people who, by accident or design (I tend to think it is a combination of the two, and not necessarily malicious), have sown the seeds for our probable racial destruction. The real answer is for whites to build a White Alternative, which will include initiatives like White Independent Nation (WIN), that – broadly-speaking – emulate the Jews’ successful ‘cultural replication strategy’. Our formal institutions have let us down and no longer serve ‘cultural replication’, or never did – the UN is just one of many prominent examples of this . So we have to re-invent our own society, and build our own institutions.
Perhaps further down the line, our descendants – say, a hundred years from now – might be petitioning the UN for international recognition of a white republic and maybe the basis of their argument will be a version of Plaintive Nationalism, which at that point might be appropriate. I hope something along these lines will happen one day, but we have to do the spadework first. Shortcuts don’t work – whether it’s violence/terrorism or electoral politics or some combination of these. The existing order (call it the Jewish Cabal or the New World Order if you like, whatever) will not entertain rights-based arguments from whites – at least, not to any significant extent. That’s because the existing system is founded on vested interests and socio-legal doctrines that are fundamentally anti-white. I say – instead of going cap in hand to our enemies, let’s build our own future.