The European indigenous people's movement

Not a moment early, to my way of thinking.

The eloquent commentator on the Islamification of Europe, who quite wisely goes under a nom de blog and calls himself Fjordman, has a new posting at Brussels Journal titled "Creating a European Indigenous People's Movement."

Fjordman says:

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.

As always when we are talking about immigration, it's important to be clear. Although some of us have heavy doubts about the ability of people from vastly different cultures to live together, we don't hate immigrants. I'm for strictly limited and selective immigration, not zero immigration, except perhaps during a time-out period, and I think Fjordman would concur. But what's happening now isn't immigration in the traditional sense — it's large-scale colonization. Or invasion, if you will.

Whether it's a conspiracy, self-interest, or short-sightedness on the part of the Western world's power elite, there can be no doubt that they are promoting ethnic replacement of their own countries' indigenous cultures big time. That would be bad enough, but they're determined not just to ignore the wishes of the populations being replaced, but to criminalize opposition.

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.

Multi-culturalism means, in practice, subsuming the culture of Western nations to alien cultures. It means apologizing for our own heritage and maintaining that every other culture fills some alleged deficit in ours. We're racists. We're colonialists. We consume too much. We're out of touch with Gaia. We need a substitute population that doesn't groan under our original sin.

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."

The United Nations has recognized the rights of indigenous peoples. You can be sure they weren't thinking of the indigenous peoples of Europe, the United States, or Australia. Nevertheless, the provisions of Article 8 should apply equally to them:

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.

Fjordman proposes six goals and objectives for a European Indigenous People's Movement, beginning with:

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.

That sounds reasonable enough, except to the European Union, which would take it as a declaration of war. Is it quixotic to go against the mighty EU? Perhaps. But there are still quite a lot of indigenous Europeans. Enough to see off a cadre of zombie functionaries in Brussels, should they ever decide to.