Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: The Right of a People

  1. #1

    Post The Right of a People

    The Right of a People

    by D.W.

    July 28, 2002

    I. Our Task

    White nationalists should not expect to receive wider society's approval by appeals to facts, logic, spirituality or any of the other classical persuasion techniques. That's because, for the time being, we're not going to get it. Society is currently debating whether White nationalists should be allowed to speak at all, to say nothing of considering our ideas. No matter. To my way of thinking, the future of the White race is not up for debate in any event.

    Yet the real world calls. Many Whites remain asleep and must somehow be roused. And beneath any proud refusal to debate our very existence as a people, our cause remains just. It is in perfect accord with the laws of nature, however difficult to articulate. In the words of the late Dr. William Pierce, describing the racial consciousness we once had, "The answers were in our souls, even if we couldn't express them with words." But today, we are called upon to do just that. That task is made easier because indeed, we do have facts, logic and spirituality on our side. True, you won't see Frank Rich, Abe Rosenthal or William Safire writing about it in the New York Times tomorrow morning. That might prompt a skeptic to say, "We won't be respectfully quoted in the paper or featured on television until AFTER the revolution, so why bother?" Possibly, but I think the more likely scenario is a White nationalist emergence in the coming years that will be harder to deny. One day, one of us may find ourselves in a forum more serious than the Jerry Springer Show. A racially unconscious but otherwise sound White person will look on, wondering what to think. If the White nationalist is convincing and sincere, it could make all the difference. In preparation for that day, what's needed are positive pro-White messages that start simply but segue to more sophisticated arguments.

    One message I think worthy of development is the group right of the White race under international law. If nothing else, an appeal to international law is an appeal to an authority outside domestic American law and opinion, which currently rejects us out of hand. If "international law" sounds to you like an academic smokescreen for the advancement of liberal interests, you're right. And make no mistake: no international forum will be hearing our case any time soon. What we must appeal to now is our own people. Yet there remains some legitimacy to international law, and White nationalists should take full advantage of the rhetorical ways in which it serves our interests.

    Briefly put, public international law is a quasi-legal body of writings and rules dealing with the relations between nations. Much of it, like the International Criminal Court in the news of late, is dismissed by even mainstream conservatives as illegitimate. But early on, it dealt with such practical concerns as how to treat foreign commercial ships during war. A basic realization was that even if two nations are at war, there are certain things neither would want done to itself, or even see a need to perpetrate, thus creating an incentive to form mutual agreements. An agreement not to torture civilians without military purpose, for instance.

    II. International Law Applies to the White Race

    It was not until the sun began to set on colonialism that international law began to address racial groups, and even then, it wasn't explicit about biological racial groups, focusing instead on the indigenous status of colonized peoples. Yet the White race, however unconscious of itself and despite its existence in different countries across the globe, is a people under international law. That thought was inspired by two things: One, Victor Gerhard's VNN essay, "The Revolution Will Not Be Legalized," which details the futility of expecting White nationalism to be achieved through our current U.S. legal system, and two, Rev. Matt Hale's citation of a United Nations declaration in support of White rights. Both are right, but I would like to combine the two arguments for added strength. American law explicitly forbids Whites from having their own community, yet international law affirms the rights of racial groups to do just that. In other words, the illegitimacy of U.S. law as it applies to the White race strengthens our claim under international law. The cobblers of the international law declarations no doubt were thinking of little brown people, not Whites, but have, in true liberal fashion, hung themselves with their own ropes. White people are also a racial group, and international jurists would hard-pressed (but don't put it too far past them) to deny the existence or humanity of White people. In the event that happens, the issue's been forced, and many sleepy Whites will be jolted awake. "Hey, Mabel, the man on TV says we're not human because we're White!"

    Here is what the U.N. Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, (U.N.G.A. Res. 1514(XV), Dec. 14, 1960), says: "The General Assembly... declares that... The subjugation of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights... All 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." A VNN reader might make the connection that for us, Jews are alien subjugators. Indeed, I can think of no more serious subjugation, albeit by subtle trickery instead of brute force, than for young White American men to be sent to die in a Zionist war in the Middle East at the behest of Paul D. Wolfowitz, Jon Podhoretz and company. Yet it is the final sentence that affirms our cause: "ALL peoples have the right to self-determination..." It doesn't say, "some people," or make a distinction between "oppressors and the oppressed." All means all. Even, I suppose, if we Whites are too dull to see what's really happening to us, much less do anything about it.

    Further support for White nationalism as part of international law comes from the word "national" itself. "National," like natal and renaissance, is derived from birth. Birth, much more than the place of occurrence, means blood ties, and that means race. To be a nationalist is to be a racialist. The real "nations" of the world are not borders on maps but racial groups, bound by more than geography, history, language and common culture. No group demonstrates this better than Jews, who operate largely without their own country. Races are bound, like father, mother, son, daughter, brother and sister, by biological kinship. This concept is bolstered by the body of racial and ethnic difference scholarship, from authors such as J. Phillippe Rushton and Richard Lynn, on blacks, to Kevin MacDonald, on Jews. But it's further bolstered by simple observation of the world around us: Races cluster. Jam them together, and they fluster.

    Thomas Aquinas made distinctions among what he called "eternal law," "natural law" and "human law." Scholars say that what Aquinas meant by "eternal law" was essentially scientific -- the laws of physics, for instance. To the extent I grasp the amorphous concept, "natural law" was a reference to what governs the behavior of human beings with free will, or the imperative to do good and avoid evil. "Human law," meanwhile, meant everything from the common law Rule Against Perpetuities to the Posse Comitatus Act in the federal criminal code -- laws people made. In Aquinas' view, a human law is valid only if it conforms with natural law, all of which operated within the realm of eternal law. The English legal chronicler William Blackstone picked up on the natural law theme, calling natural law superior to any other obligations, "binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this..." What I draw from Aquinas and Blackstone is that human laws, and the human arrangements they create, must be consistent with something we instinctively or intuitively feel as right. Too, that it's entirely possible for human law to be in conflict with this, and that when that is the case, appeal may be had to other authorities. As it stands for Whites, nothing could be more unnatural than our current social arrangement with other races.

    III. American Law Violates Whites' Right of Community

    For the purposes of White nationalism, the conflicting human law in question is American law. Specifically, it is the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enacted after the Civil War along with the Thirteenth, which outlawed black slavery, and the Fifteenth, which granted black males the right to vote. The Fourteenth Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No STATE shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any STATE deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS (emphasis added). In other words, the Illinois legislature could not pass a law saying that blacks would be sentenced to ten years and Whites five for the same crime. This, of course, makes no sense, given racial differences. Gun laws, for instance, are written to keep guns out of the hands of both blacks and Whites. Never mind that blacks, who ignore these laws in any event, are statistically far more likely to use them for violent and illegal purposes. Or take the Constitutional protections afforded a person charged with a crime. Originally written by Whites and for Whites to ensure that the right person is convicted, our race now expends untold sums extending these same rights to a constant stream of black and Hispanic animals who commit a vastly disproportionate number of crimes in the U.S. and who've never read the Constitution to begin with.

    A point missed by most Americans is that the Fourteenth Amendment, like the Constitution itself, applies only to government action, not private people. That meant that if I personally wanted to keep blacks out of my store, I had every right to do so. A series of Supreme Court decisions known as the "Civil Rights Cases" in the 1880s (109 U.S. 3, 1883) affirmed just that. In striking down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, a federal law that forced White innkeepers and theater owners to accept black "patrons" -- and slapped them with $500 fines if they did not -- the Supreme Court said that indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment makes no mention of private action, only state action. Needless to say, the 1883 Supreme Court's logic did not stand. Race-mixers eventually found ways around, either by invoking the Commerce Clause (because denying blacks access to barbecue restaurants on the interstate highway is bound to have an effect on interstate commerce) or through creative interpretations of what counted as "state action" for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    One Supreme Case, Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), involved a White neighborhood in St. Louis that quite sensibly wanted to keep blacks out. To that end, in 1911, 39 of the property owners signed a restrictive covenant preventing the sale of houses to non-Caucasians for a period of 50 years. A later White property owner -- who I suspect was not among the original 39 and was unaware of the restrictive covenant, sold to Shelley, a black. Shelley moved in and the other property owners cried foul. The Missouri state court agreed, as did the Supreme Court -- at least for the first few paragraphs of the decision. Then, in a stroke of legal manipulative genius, it said that because the state court was called upon to enforce the private covenant, that was the "state action" needed to make the Fourteenth Amendment applicable. Result: the blacks stay. And you know what happens to the neighborhood after that.

    Today, Whites pay for the forced acceptance of blacks into their communities through higher insurance costs, law enforcement costs, retail costs and taxes, to say nothing of the loss of White racial association. As anyone who's had the thoroughly unpleasant experience of watching a movie with blacks can tell you, this is no minor matter. From Philadelphia to Kansas City, the unruly blacks whoop and yell at the screen and urinate on the theater floor. Whites are denied the right to sit next to a calm, pleasant White person. Like slaves ripped from their brothers and sisters, Whites are forcibly cleaved from their racial family members. If you don't believe force is involved, just try defying federal law and see how far you get. Almost no sphere of White life is untouched by the federal government's shoving of blacks and other minorities down our throats. It is illegal for most White employers to refuse to hire blacks. It is illegal for many White landlords to refuse to rent to Hispanics, no matter how loud the merengue music. This is a wholly illegitimate system of law. Since its inception by Hugo Grotius in the 1600s, international law has acknowledged the sovereignty of nations. Today, it is the sovereignty of the White race, a natural nation, that suffers while others flourish. This system must change or fall.

    IV. Revolution: Paradox of the Law

    No nation on earth, the United States included, would "allow" revolution. It's not technically "legal," even, I suppose, under international law. When it happens, it happens. Blood flows in the street, and the new regime steps in, for better or worse. This is how the American Revolution of the late 18th century unfolded. Or, in the case of the United States' second revolution -- the one that saw Whites lose power and living space to other races -- it happened slowly, by a gradual takeover of ideas and institutions by other races and smoothed by the acquiescence of the dominant people. The commonality is inertia: it's overcome quickly, with weapons, or slowly, with covert action and message manipulation. How Whites will overcome the inertia that threatens their racial survival remains to be seen. But the inertia is glacial, and there will be no "civil disobedience" allowed to Whites. Refusal to abide by race-destroying American law will be met with a hail of bullets, not sympathetic reports by Peter Jennings. What I have tried to demonstrate in this essay is that Whites have racial rights under international law, even if they do not have racial rights under American law. The hope is that assertion of these rights will put Whites on a peaceful path to racial survival. But even if our rights remain unrecognized in any forum, domestic, international or media, we still have them. We need only declare them.

    So what happens if the declaration falls on deaf ears? Don't forget about this declaration, now worth repeating: "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation... When a long train of abuses and usurpations... evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." In other words, we've tried reasoning with you. We told you what the problem was, and what we wanted. We got no response. You've left us no choice but to act. So we're now putting you on notice. We have declared ourselves independent, and the consequences will be what they will be. For Whites, it has not yet come to this. But we can draw strength from the knowledge that for our forefathers, it did, and for almost a century, they prevailed.


  2. #2
    Stand and Deliever


    The white race in America will not wake up because they enjoy being like niggers too much.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Ederico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 4th, 2007 @ 10:37 PM
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    9 Posts


    This has been very interesting to read. If under International Law Aryans in America have the right to self-determination, how much more should Aryans in Europe have the right to self-determination. The Amendments to the U.S. Constitution have made it possible for non-Aryans to enter and lessen the self-determination of the Aryan Community of the U.S.A.. I ask what laws make it possible to lessen the self-determination of Aryans in their respective Aryan Nations? What rights do Nationals in Europe have under International Law, and to what limits to safeguard their rights can Nationals go to gain real self-determination?

  4. #4

    Post Nazzjonalista

    I ask what laws make it possible to lessen the self-determination of Aryans in their respective Aryan Nations? What rights do Nationals in Europe have under International Law, and to what limits to safeguard their rights can Nationals go to gain real self-determination?
    The answer to that is simple. Repeal the illegal 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constititution, which were illegally passed at gunpoint anyway. Around 1865 when reconstruction was beginning in the South the original 13th Amendment was removed and replaced with the one we have now. The original has turned up in several new territories including Alaska, and would have removed rule by oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which we now have under the illegitimate fed. government. Before the War For Southern Independence we had ordinary people such as frontiersmen serving in Congress. Now it's impossible for a man on the street to be elected. We need another revolution to flush the former abolitionists, the reds, traitors, and other trash from our country like turds through a toilet.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: Monday, March 12th, 2012, 08:27 AM
  2. Why Do People Prefer to Be Governed by "Their Own" People?
    By Siebenbürgerin in forum Politics & Geopolitics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Monday, July 28th, 2008, 12:49 PM
  3. Were Ancient Corded People White People?
    By kgnju in forum Physical Anthropology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Friday, June 30th, 2006, 11:20 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: Saturday, May 20th, 2006, 06:33 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, February 8th, 2006, 05:16 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts