Creating a European Indigenous People’s Movement

[Waarnemer]

Creating a European Indigenous People’s Movement
By Fjordman

An American friend of mine has proposed that native Europeans should create a European Indigenous People's Movement. I have hesitated with supporting this because it sounded a bit too extreme. However, in more and more European cities, the native population is being pushed out of their own neighborhoods by immigrant gangs. The natives receive little or no aid from their authorities, sometimes blatant hostility, when faced with immigrant violence. In an age where the global population increases with billions of people in a few decades, it is entirely plausible, indeed likely, that the West could soon become demographically overwhelmed. Not few of our intellectuals seem to derive pleasure from this thought.

Bat Ye'or in her book about Eurabia has documented how the European Union is actively allowing Muslims to colonize European countries. The next time EU leaders complain about China's treatment of minorities, I suggest the Chinese answer the following: "Yes, we represent an anti-democratic organization dedicated to subduing the indigenous people of Tibet, but you represent an anti-democratic organization dedicated to displacing the indigenous peoples of an entire continent." There is no love lost between me and the Chinese Communist Party, an organization responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of its citizens, but even Chinese authorities do not actively seek to displace their own people with violent Muslims. European authorities do.

In decadent societies of the past, the authorities didn't open the gates to hostile nations and ban opposition to this as intolerance and barbarophobia. What we are dealing with in the modern West is not merely decadence; it's one of the greatest betrayals in history. Our so-called leaders pass laws banning the opposition to our dispossession as "racism and hate speech." To native Europeans, when listening to our media and our leaders, it's as if we don't even exist, as if it were normal for them to put the interests of other nations over their own. Despite having "democratic" governments, many Western countries have authorities that are more hostile to their own people than dictators in some developing countries. Why?

At the Daily Telegraph, Simon Heffer suggests that the mass immigration encouraged in particular by the Labour governments of Blair and Brown in Britain is not happening out of incompetence, but is part of "a doctrinally driven determination by the new Government in 1997 to destroy our national identity and to advance multiculturalism." I agree, but this policy of state-sponsored population replacement is far from limited to Britain.
Numbers discussed in 2008 showed clearly that mass immigration has had no positive effects on the economy in Britain, and I have seen similar calculations from France, Denmark and Norway, among others. On the contrary, it is a drain on the finances of the native population, and that's even if we don't count the wave of terrorism, insecurity and street violence which is sweeping Western Europe, from Sweden via Germany to the Netherlands. On top of this, the costs of destruction of national cohesion and weakened cultural legacies are incalculable, yet mass immigration continues as if nothing has happened. In April 2008, a report indicated that Spain needed over two million new foreign workers just until 2020, many of whom are likely to come from Muslim North Africa. The authors of the report would call upon the Spanish government to adopt a new law on immigration "to facilitate the legal entry, take advantage of the new arrivals and encourage integration."

I have earlier toyed with the idea of giving native Norwegians the legal status as indigenous people in Norway. A large proportion of my ancestors have lived here since the end of the last Ice Age, for as long as this country has been habitable for humans. The original settlers, who came from Central Europe (Germany and the Czech Republic), have been supplemented by other Europeans. Genetic traces from peoples of Near Eastern origins who spread agriculture to Europe are detectable, but until recently most Europeans were overwhelmingly the descendants of men and women who had lived in the region for tens of thousands of years.
Genetically speaking, native Europeans have thus lived longer on the same continent than have Native Americans. Many Southeast Asians are descendants of southern Chinese settlers who displaced or eradicated the original, dark-skinned inhabitants of the region in early historical times, just as many of the nations of sub-Saharan Africa are Bantu invaders who displaced or eradicated the indigenous Khoi-San peoples throughout much of Africa. Modern-day Japanese have lived in Japan for a shorter period of time than Europeans have lived in Europe. Yet a Scottish councillor, Sandy Aitchison, was chastised for using the term "indigenous" about native Brits. Why is it considered ridiculous or evil if Europeans assert our rights? Is it because we are white? Everybody's supposed to keep their culture, except people of European origins? Is that it? Why is colonialism bad, except when my country, which has no colonial history, gets colonized by Third World peoples?

Western Europeans have in recent years accepted more immigration in a shorter period of time than any society has ever done peacefully in human history. If we want a break we have the right to do so. What we are dealing with is not "immigration" but colonization, and in the case of Muslims, internationally organized attempts to conquer of our countries. If non-Europeans have the right to resist colonization then so do Europeans. Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Norway hardly have any colonial history at all. The Germans had a colony in Namibia. Why should they accept millions of Turkish Muslims, who have a thousand years of brutal colonial history of their own, because of this? There are hardly any Britons in Pakistan today, so why should the Brits allow huge numbers of Pakistanis to settle in Britain? And if the Algerians can demand independence from France, why can't the French demand independence from Algerians?
I like cultural diversity and would hope this could be extended to include my culture, too. Or is Multiculturalism simply a hate ideology designed to unilaterally dismantle European culture and the peoples who created it? If people in Cameroon or Cambodia can keep their culture, why can't the peoples who produced Beethoven, Newton, Copernicus, Michelangelo and Louis Pasteur do the same? As Rabbi Aryeh Spero points out, European elites insist "on the primacy of indigenous cultures and religions when speaking of other faraway regions, yet find such insistence arrogant when it concerns the indigenous culture of its own lands."

Yes, a little immigration from compatible cultures can be absorbed, and can be beneficial on certain terms. But what we are dealing with now is not from compatible cultures, and it certainly isn't little. My nation runs a very real risk of being demographically wiped out during this century, as do the other Nordic countries. We will go from being among the most successful societies in human history to being eradicated in the space of a few generations if current levels of mass immigration continue. Do I have the right to worry about this, or is that "racist"?

The author Gore Vidal once stated: "Norway is large enough and empty enough to take in 40 to 50 million homeless Bengalis. If the Norwegians say that, all in all, they would rather not take them in, is this to be considered racism? I think not. It is simply self-preservation, the first law of species." Thomas Jefferson said that "The law of self-preservation is higher than written law," and he was right.

As I wrote two years ago: "By any standards possible, we're one of the most successful cultures in the world, our largest flaw, which could eventually bury us, probably being our naivety. So why on earth should we quietly watch while our country is subdued by the most unsuccessful cultures in the world? The most basic instinct of all living things, even down to bacteria level, is self-preservation. In 2006, you have a natural right to self-preservation if you are an amoeba, but not if you're a Scandinavian. Maybe the solution then is to argue that Scandinavians are indeed a species of amoebas, and that we need special protection by the WWF. We could showcase some of our finest specimen of Leftist intellectuals and journalists to prove our point. Shouldn't be too hard."
For simply suggesting that I would not enjoy being turned into a persecuted minority in my own country, I have been accused of being a "white nationalist," which says a great deal about how demonized people of European ancestry have become. What about Koreans or Japanese? If they were gradually being displaced by, say, Nigerians and Pakistanis and were harassed in their cities by people who moved there out of their own free will, would they be denounced as yellow nationalists if they objected to this? In fact, why do the terms yellow nationalist, brown nationalist and black nationalist hardly exist, whereas the term white nationalist does? Isn't that by itself an indication of a double standard?

I started out initially writing almost exclusively about Islam, and I still write predominantly about Islam. However, I have gradually realized that we are dealing with an entire regime of censorship that needs to be removed before we can deal with Islam. I will in any situation highlight and support the struggle of Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Baha'is, Jews, African Christians, Chinese Taoists etc. against Islamic Jihad, which is a global fight. I always have and I always will. The one thing I will not do is surrender my land, which is not mine to give. I do not see anybody else quietly accept being turned into a minority in the country where their ancestors have lived since the end of the last Ice Age, and I cannot see why I should have to do so, either. I don't care if white Westerners are "scared of being called a racist." I will not leave a ruined land behind to my descendants because I was afraid of being called bad names. If you think it is "racist" for Europeans to preserve their heritage and protect their children from abuse, then I'm not the bigot here. You are.

I hereby propose that native Europeans should create a European Indigenous People's Movement, on behalf of the traditional majority populations of Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark etc., inspired by the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The European Indigenous People's Movement should support the right of Europe's indigenous peoples to preserve their self-determination, traditions, sovereignty and culture as majority peoples in their own lands.

The list of goals and objectives should include:
1.) The right to maintain our traditional majorities in our own lands, control our own sovereignty and our own self-determination. We do not wish harm or ill-feeling toward any other peoples on earth, but we assert the right to maintain our own majorities in our own lands without being accused of "racism." We reject current trends which preach that we have no right to oppose, control or lessen unlimited immigration from non-indigenous cultures.

2.) The right to teach our children our cultures, languages, historical interpretations, religious celebrations and traditions unimpeded. We reject educational trends which encourage our children to forget or despise their culture, traditions, religious practices and history in order to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens.

3.) The right to maintain, cherish and practice our own indigenous religious holidays and celebrations. We reject out of hand current trends which preach that traditional indigenous European religious or cultural celebrations such as Christmas are somehow "racist" or "non-inclusive" and therefore must be "downgraded," "renamed" or otherwise de-emphasized or eliminated in order to avoid offending non-indigenous European residents or citizens. We reject current policies which establish that our indigenous cultures are somehow deficient and therefore are not complete until they are "enriched" by other, non-indigenous cultures.

4.) The right to maintain, cherish and display our own indigenous religious, national, ethnic and cultural symbols. We reject out of hand current trends or policies which preach that our national flags or ethnic symbols of centuries standing are somehow "racist" or "non-inclusive" in order to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens.

5.) The right to maintain, cherish, protect and display our own indigenous cultural expressions such as music, artwork and sculptures. We reject out of hand current trends or policies which preach that indigenous European cultural expressions such as statues of boars, folkloric tales about pigs or dogs, paintings with Christian or Classical pagan themes, war memorials with a Christian theme, etc., should be removed from public view, banned, destroyed, modified or otherwise threatened in order to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens.

6.) The right to maintain, cherish and protect indigenous burial sites, structures, buildings, churches, museums and other public works and structures from destruction, modification or other changes. We reject out of hand current trends or policies which establish that indigenous public works and structures must be changed or modified to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens, or to "make way" for structures or public works that benefit non-European residents or citizens (i.e. digging up indigenous graves that are centuries old in order to "make room" for non-indigenous cemeteries, removing external Christian symbols and statues from churches, etc.)

Mr. Franco Frattini of the EU Commission, the unelected and unaccountable government for nearly half a billion people, has stated that Europeans should accept further tens of millions of immigrants within a generation. The British Foreign Minister Milliband stated late in 2007 that the EU should expand to include Muslim nations in North Africa and the Middle East. The French President Sarkozy and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed this early in 2008. This is part of an organized attempt to surrender Europe to Islamization that has been going on for decades. Since the European Union involves the free movement of people across borders, European leaders are opening the floodgates to tens of millions of Muslims and other non-indigenous peoples at a time when native Europeans fear for the survival of their civilization and feel like aliens in their own cities. Meanwhile, Ernst Uhrlau, the president of Germany's foreign intelligence agency, warned about the rising assertiveness of violent Jihadist organizations in North Africa.

Based on this evidence, the European Union can hardly be seen as anything other than a criminal organization dedicated to the demographic dispossession and cultural marginalization of the indigenous peoples of an entire continent. Consequently, the EU should be immediately and totally dissolved. Native Europeans should demand that we have an interim period with public de-Eurabification, where the lies propagated by pro-Islamic Multiculturalists should be removed from our history books, and a proper respect for European cultural traditions should be restored. Those officials on senior levels who have participated in the creation of Eurabia should stand trial for crimes against their civilization.

source

[Menydh]

Some months ago I started contacting different people with a proposal to move towards a similar plan of associationism, and on similar grounds. I had been playing with this idea in my mind for a very long time. A number of items have already been discussed and the legal details are currently being studied by an advisor. Unfortunately we only count with very limited financial and human resources, and there is a reasonable limit where you can hurry someone who is doing a work for free.

Perhaps the most noticeable difference of this initiative with the one exposed in the article is that it was not suggested by any American. And among other things this means that it is not intended to compromise its objectives for the defense of the interests of a non indigenous European people. Notice the quick mentioning of Bat Ye'or and Eurabia, by the article's author.

However, after considering different alternatives, both legal and structural, the no few pros and cons on the ones and on the others, a number of strategical positioning, and more, I've also had to rise a question: Europe who?

Or rather, who in Europe can we count on with who we can trust that they will they be true to this project and will not jeopardize it for whatever purposes.

Other related question have followed to that one. And the truth is that, if you analyze country after country with a little experience on what is to be expected from the elements of each and every country, you have to come to the conclusion that your best chances are much reduced.

Unless you are prepared to deal with a bunch of retards craving to make a statement about the texture of blond hair, the arctic origins of ancient Civilizations, or to prostute any effort for the preservation of native peoples and cultures to broadcast the allegations of supremacy of the the social pariahs of some far away continents.

Not to mention the risk of the indigenous identities ending up presented as lunacies.

Deal with it. Depressing as it is.


p.s. some of you might remember that I mentioned it in private, and coincidentially I pointed to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as an idea (which, by the way, it is no bouding).

[Errigal]

Yes, I think the Indigenous Peoples argument is worth introducing into debates but quickly gets entangled in who went where after the last Ice Age and whether group migrations after a certain date makes that group non-indigenous. Lots of hair-splitting and argumentation.

Even so it is worth introducing the argument to the broader public so that the next time they hear about the plight of an indigenous group in Asia, Africa or the Americas they will say "What about us? Who cares about our cultural survival?"

[Menydh]

In decadent societies of the past, the authorities didn't open the gates to hostile nations and ban opposition to this as intolerance and barbarophobia. What we are dealing with in the modern West is not merely decadence; it's one of the greatest betrayals in history.

This statement is very uninformed.

In the year 258 AD, during the Crisis of the Third Century, the West briefly seceded from the Roman Empire among other reasons because of a growing discontent as Rome was pulling out her Legions from the limes Germanicus which was under the constant hostilities of the Alamanni, to protect the East. Another source of discontent (and ignition of the crisis) was the increased employment of "foreign" (Barbarian) labour in the form of troops.

And the same in 376 AD, when the same Goths who had previously sacked Byzantium were helped to cross the Danube, into the Roman Empire, with the intention of using them as auxiliary troops. Later the Goths sacked Rome.

Forget for a moment that these were military recruitments. It was, after all, the major "industry" at those times. Those were followed by others, until 406 AD when the Rhine froze and masses fell upon a weakened Empire. And from that moment onwards the flood was unstoppable. The West would never be the same again.

[Menydh]

Why is colonialism bad, except when my country, which has no colonial history, gets colonized by Third World peoples?

Another uneducated guess?

The colonization of Iceland began as early as 874 AD. And Greenland was annexed by the Kingdom of Norway in 1261, while the Norse had started colonizing it as early as 984 AD.

[Aptrgangr]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Another uneducated guess?

The colonization of Iceland began as early as 874 AD. And Greenland was annexed by the Kingdom of Norway in 1261, while the Norse had started colonizing it as early as 984 AD.

There have been no colonists in both areas, Greenland and Iceland (except some Irish eremites in Iceland - the Eskimos did not arrive Greenland before the Norse did) - what we have today is a colonization of our homelands despite their are already populated by native ethnicities.
These foreigners coming here are colonists since they are brought in whether they can find a job on the labour market or not; the main reason behind this is the destruction of native European societies by destroying any racial/ethnic homogenity, the base a nation is founded on. I am well aware big money also is interested in cheap labour, but have a look at Japan, you can exploit workers in a homogenous society too.

[Menydh]

Both Greenland and Iceland were formally colonies of Norway. Even when in the case of Iceland, the natives were Scandinavians themselves. Greenland was settled by the Inuits before the Norse. It doesn't matter that these Inuits were few in numbers. Not that you could expect that environment to support large populations, especially in those times.

But if that's not enough, then what do you call the Norwegian ruling over Sami settlements in Scandinavia?

To hide behind a pretention of noble savage and civilized character, is very poor.

The creation of a European indigenous initiative can only be based on true and dignifying bases, not on cheap pseudo-indigenism. The one reason that the perservation of European peoples is most important, is the value of their heritages. If you cannot preserve them in their dignity, then the whole idea becomes worthless.

[Aptrgangr]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Both Greenland and Iceland were formally colonies of Norway. Even when in the case of Iceland, the natives were Scandinavians themselves.[/

I know this, still the situation can not be compared with the colonialization today, I already explained it: we are under siege by foreign colonists that are brought in here to destroy our nation from within (a Green politican openly said: we must destroy Germany from within). I am well aware the Norwegians invaded Scotland and Ireland, still the consequences were not as dramatic as the colonialization of our nations with millions of foreigners.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Greenland was settled by the Inuits before the Norse.

What makes you sure it was like that? Actually the Inuit arrived at the same time like the Vikings did.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

It doesn't matter that these Inuits were few in numbers. Not that you could expect that environment to support large populations, especially in those times.

The Inuit are used to live in this environment, they colonialized Greenland after migrating from the north American continent - they followed seals and other animals they hunted after those started wandering due to climatic changes.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

But if that's not enough, then what do you call the Norwegian ruling over Sami settlements in Scandinavia?

I am never in favour in ruling over other people, but the Vikings respected the Saami people, it was the modern kingdoms and democracies that made them subjects. Today Saami in Norway and Sweden are grated rights Norwegians and Swedes only can dream about.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

To hide behind a pretention of noble savage and civilized character, is very poor.

The more civilized the more barbaric a civilization is. You won't find Bushmen butchering millions of their unborn babies - we do that and consider ourselves as cream of civilizations, and look down to these "primitives".

Originally Posted by Mynydd

The creation of a European indigenous initiative can only be based on true and dignifying bases, not on cheap pseudo-indigenism.

Anything related to European indigenous heritage will be outlawed as "Racism", "Nazism" and "Fascism" anyway.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

The one reason that the perservation of European peoples is most important, is the value of their heritages.

I agree totally, but you can not deny big mosques meanwhile belong to "our heritage".

Originally Posted by Mynydd

If you cannot preserve them in their dignity, then the whole idea becomes worthless.

I can not preserve anyone else, everyone must to this for her/his own.