On Thursday 13th September 2007, the United Nations adopted the The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The declaration, which aims to develop and establish international human rights standards for indigenous populations across the world, was favoured by a majority of 144 states to 4 (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States being the four countries who voted against) along with 11 abstentions (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine). In the 11 years since 2007, the four countries who voted against the declaration have since reversed their position and now support it. According to the United Nations, the UNDRIP is the most comprehensive international instrument on the rights of indigenous peoples in the world today.

The declaration affirms that indigenous people are equal in worth to all other people, while also recognising that they have the right to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such. It also affirms that indigenous peoples, in the exercise of their rights, should be free from discrimination of any kind.

The four bullet points below are not an exhaustive list, but just a few parts of the declaration that I have highlighted in order to give a general overview.

In relation to the UNDRIP, the General Assembly are:

  • Recognising the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rightsof indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources.
  • Welcoming the fact that indigenous peoples are organising themselves for political, economic, social and cultural enhancement and in order to bring to an end all forms of discrimination and oppression wherever they occur.
  • Convinced that control by indigenous peoples over developments affecting them and their lands, territories and resources will enable them to maintain and strengthen their institutions, cultures and traditions, and to promote their development in accordance with their aspirations and needs.
  • Recognising and reaffirming that indigenous individuals are entitled without discrimination to all human rights recognised in international law, and that indigenous peoples possess collective rights which are indispensable for their existence, well-being and integral development as peoples.

 

Europeans and Their Status as ‘Indigenous People’

The term “indigenous” refers simply to those “originating in, and characteristic of, a particular region or country; native”. The United Nations also recognise that indigenous people have:

  • Distinct social, economic or political systems.
  • Distinct language, culture and beliefs.
  • Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies.

 

When we think of indigenous people, our heads are filled with images of Amazon tribes and African pygmies but the above certainly applies to Europeans as well. Regardless of our differences to the groups I just mentioned, technological advancement isn’t a pre-requisite to be classified as indigenous.

Despite the recent ‘Black wash’ of our history by the mainstream media, we are native to our countries. We also have distinct social, economic and political systems; we have distinct languages, cultures and beliefs, and we were here first, thousands of years before the recent invasion of economic migrants and refugees from Africa and Asia.

We can use the British as an example. As my colleague William wrote in his 2017 Defend Europa Article; Yes, The British ARE An Indigenous People:

“A book published in 2005 by a research fellow at the Institute of Archaeology in Oxford, David Miles, states that 80% of the DNA of native white Britons can be traced back to a group of a few thousand hunter-gatherers who settled in the British Isles immediately after the end of the last glacial maximum.”

 

Britain has faced invasions by the Romans, the Anglo Saxons, the Vikings and the Normans over the years, but these invasions, as detailed above, had very little impact on our genetics. It was only the Anglo Saxons who were found to have any notable impact on our genetics, accounting for approximately 10% of modern English DNA.

It is ludicrous in itself that the progressive left would try to use these invasions as an argument to say that the British are not native to their homelands so we should open up our borders to the Third World. Not only did the above invasions have nowhere near the impact on our genetic makeup that The Great Replacement is having today, but we defended ourselves against those invasions as they occurred too. We also need to consider that these were invasions by other Europeans. I.E., people who are very similar to us in a genetic and cultural sense.

Even if we want to dispute the slight differences in British genes, they are still all European, so we must agree that Europeans are indigenous to Europe. If you choose to respond to this with the now debunked “We all came from Africa anyway” argument, then this must mean that nobody is indigenous to anywhere, right?

Let’s also consider the time we’ve inhabited our island in relation to other, more well known indigenous groups. The Māori People who are native to New Zealand, for example, arrived on their island approximately 750 years ago. This is 250 years after the last large-scale invasion of Britain.

To deny our status as indigenous people is biased at best, and downright evil at worst.

 

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Above we have a declaration committed to overlooking the protection and development of indigenous groups. We also have evidence to highlight that Europeans, using the British as an example, are indigenous. So why are the native percentages of our populations allowed to plummet, and why is state-enforced multiculturalism allowed to take place?

There is a clear clash of interests between wanting to protect indigenous peoples but overlooking the security of those indigenous peoples who are White. A 2000 article by The Guardian titled: Non-Whites Will Be Majority in US and Europe by 2050 (subsequently changed to: The Last Days of the White World) highlighted our likelihood of becoming minority populations in our own countries within a few decades and featured the following paragraph about Ugandan immigrant, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown:

“Yasmin Alibhai-Brown of the Foreign Policy Centre, who arrived in London from Uganda in 1972, said such fears [about White people becoming a minority in Britain] are basically racist: ‘Only White people worry about this. It’s because for such a long time the world has been their own. To talk about it feeds a particular type of racism that says that blacks breed like rabbits. There is an underlying assumption that says White is right.’”

 

This is just one of thousands upon thousands of examples of our enemies revelling in the thought of White replacement. Now consider the above gloating tone regarding the displacement of Whites in Britain, and take a look at the following items from the UNDRIP:

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.

Notice the difference when it comes to White people?

Although the UNDRIP is a non-legally binding declaration which is simply an aspiration for how indigenous individuals and peoples should be treated, since it’s adoption, it has been highlighted in a number of cases relating to the treatment of indigenous peoples. You only have to search for the declaration in the news to see story upon story highlighting the unethical treatment of indigenous groups and calling the UN to account. None of these groups are White groups, of course.

It is reported that White people are already less than 10% of the world’s population. We are a global minority by a long-shot. Our home is Europe, and we have nowhere else to go.

We cannot put the overlooking of our replacement by the United Nations down as an accident. These people know too well how the demographics of our countries are changing. They talk openly about “replacement migration” on their website so we must conclude that they are disregarding our status on purpose.

Rights are not aspirations, they’re not ideals and they’re not ‘nice-to-haves’. They’re the minimum standards of what is acceptable. But the word “right” emphasises that something should be granted to us, when we know this won’t be the case.

We can no longer sit back and wait for our traitorous governments to suddenly start caring. This isn’t going to happen. The non-stop Cultural Marxism dripping in through the media, politics and education will make sure of this; in addition to the mass debt we’re in at the hands of international bankers.

We can’t reverse The Great Replacement at the ballot box.

We must take matters into our own hands.

 

3 COMMENTS

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here