In this essay I use terms which could cause confusion or disagreement: “The Left,” “the Right,” “European man,” etc. I do not want to argue about terms, but there are alternative ways of phrasing the terms and thereby promoting the argument I want to present. To keep the argument focused on the key message I shall keep to my terms, but you may have your own terms that would work equally as well.
I have always thought that our cause needed an international body comparable in influence and prestige to the Socialist International; an organisation of the Left which gains financial and political support from Leftist parties currently in power around the world. The reason for this is as follows.
Our problem is a global one. No country on earth, or at least no European country, is secure and untouched from the destructive forces arrayed against us. We are all equally under attack and under pressure. This causes a further problem. The Left is international by its very nature, due to its being universalist. The Left is willfully blind to politically relevant differences of peoples and it has a vision of the future which necessarily leads to one world government and a homogeneous undifferentiated people, each individually replaceable by any other – thereby making easily them exploitable by international interests (business or otherwise).
The Right is not universalist, so it is harder for it to be truly international. Our aims are not simply universalistic, since our ambitions, unlike the Left, do not extend to all the human race, to the entire globe. We do not want a world government. Certainly not one conceived along the lines of the UN. Our aims do extend however so far as European man has extended. European man is not simply based in Europe, though historically, prior to colonization, that is where European man first arose and settled. We have a need for international co-operation on more than just an informal basis. As a people we are international, we need to start to show that to the world. We have common interests and a common enemy; to quote the famous Zionist, Theodor Herzl: “We are a people — the enemy forces us to be a people . . .” [“Wir sind ein Volk – der Feind macht uns ohne unseren Willen dazu…” Judenstaat].
So, let us look at a workable model.
The Socialist International
The Socialist International (http://www.socialistinternational.org/) is a worldwide association of political parties which seek to establish what it calls democratic socialism. It consists of democratic socialist, social democratic, and labor political parties and other organizations. The Australian Labor Party is a member of this organisation, and The Labour Party of the UK is an Observer Party of it.
Although formed in 1951 as a successor to the Labour and Socialist International it has antecedents to the late 19th century. Initially dominated by parties from Western Europe, it has grown to include more than 160 member parties from more than 100 countries. Its members have governed in many countries, including most of Europe.
We have no parties in power that show an interest in something comparable for our side. So, let us look at a different model.
The Indigenous Model
Australia hosted the first World Indigenous Network (WIN) conference in Darwin last year, from Sunday 26 to Friday 31 May 2013. A glossy, well-publicized affair, it drew together 1,200 rangers and land and sea managers from across the globe for six days of discussion and information sharing. From its perspective the conference looks at “indigenous issues, industries and knowledges [sic].” A participant said that, “Not only are these types of gatherings timely as many governments look towards indigenous knowledges [sic] and practices as a way of reducing climate change and land degradation, they also have the power and potential to create significant global solidarity, growth, and change.” WIN joins a growing movement to address indigenous issues at a global, rather than just at a local level.
So where is our movement? We are being outpaced even by Aborigines.
Now, this Network and its cause are a current favorite of governments, and we cannot hope to be similarly funded, we need to look elsewhere again.
An Alternate Model
A suggested alternative is the idea of a congress for those of European descent modeled on the World Jewish Congress. After looking into the constitution and history of this entity, the model seems to be an apt one for various reasons. It would be a World European Congress, an international body of freely associated individuals and interested parties. But firstly, before delineated what that could be like, it is first necessary to detail the history and character of the World Jewish Congress.
2. History of the World Jewish Congress
I am going to go into a brief history of the World Jewish Congress now, to give you an idea of its scope, impact, and growth. (See http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/). And also it is a fascinating model about how to approach a solution which has (spectacularly) worked to our own, comparable problem. As there is not much written on this organisation (no US university has ever had a PhD thesis on this body, and there are very few available books published treating it), much of the following draws on information from their own website and from the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Jewish_Congress).
The World Jewish Congress (WJC) was founded in Geneva, Switzerland, in August 1936 as an international federation of Jewish communities and organisations. According to its mission statement, the World Jewish Congress’ main purpose is to act as “the diplomatic arm of the Jewish people.” Membership in the WJC is open to all representative Jewish groups or communities, irrespective of the social, political, or economic ideology of the community’s host country. The World Jewish Congress headquarters are in New York City, US, and the organisation maintains many international offices.
The last meeting of the Plenary Assembly, you may have seen in the news, was attended by over 600 delegates and observers from over 70 countries, and was held in Budapest, Hungary, in May 2013.
The WJC’s current policy priorities include combating anti-Semitism, especially the rise of neo-Nazi parties in Europe, providing political support for Israel, opposing the “Iranian threat,” and dealing with the legacy of the Holocaust, notably with respect to property restitution, reparation, and compensation for Holocaust survivors, as well as with Holocaust remembrance. One of the WJC’s major programs is concerned with the plight of Jewish refugees from Arab lands. The WJC is also involved in inter-faith dialogue with Christian and Muslim groups.
Since its foundation, it has been a permanent body with offices around the world. The main aims of the organisation originally were “to mobilize the Jewish people and the democratic forces against the Nazi onslaught,” to “fight for equal political and economic rights everywhere, and particularly for the Jewish minorities in Central and Eastern Europe,” to support the establishment of a “Jewish National Home in Palestine,” and to create “a worldwide Jewish representative body based on the concept of the unity of the Jewish people, democratically organized and able to act on matters of common concern.” Some of these aims have already been achieved.
The first impetus for the creation of the WJC came from the American Jewish Congress. In December 1917, the AJC adopted a resolution calling for the “convening of a World Jewish Congress,” “as soon as peace is declared among the warring nations” in Europe. Conferences took place in 1926 in London and in 1927 in Zurich, Switzerland. The latter was attended by 65 Jews from 13 countries, representing 43 Jewish organisations, though the main Jewish groups in Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, as well as the American Jewish Committee, declined the invitation to attend.
The First Preparatory World Jewish Conference was held in Geneva in August 1932. The purpose of the World Jewish Congress was stated as follows:
“It is to establish the permanent address of the Jewish people; amidst the fragmentation and atomization of Jewish life and of the Jewish community; it is to establish a real, legitimate, collective representation of Jewry which will be entitled to speak in the name of the 16 million Jews to the nations and governments of the world, as well as to the Jews themselves.”
The conference approved plans to set up the new organisation in 1934, with headquarters in New York and European offices in Berlin, Germany. In a manifesto, delegates called upon the Jewish people to unite as the only effective means of averting danger. The Jews, the declaration said, had to rely on their own power with the assistance of such enlightened sections of the world which had not yet been saturated with poisonous anti-Semitism. It added: “The World Jewish Congress does not aim at weakening any existing organisations, but rather to support and stimulate them.” The new organisation would be based on the “concept of the Jewish people as a national entity, and authorized and obligated to deal with all problems affecting Jewish life.”
In the summer of 1933, following the rise to power of Adolf Hitler and his NSDAP in Germany, American Jewish Congress President Bernard Deutsch called on US Jewish organisations to support the establishment of a World Jewish Congress “to prove the sincerity of their stand” in support of the Jews then in Germany.
After two more preparatory conferences in 1933 and 1934, the First Plenary Assembly, held in Geneva in August 1936, established the World Jewish Congress as a permanent and democratic organisation. Elections for delegates to that assembly had to be according to democratic principles (viz. secret, direct, and based on proportional representation). For example, the 52 American delegates were chosen at an Electoral Convention which met in Washington, DC, on 13/14 June 1936 and which was attended by 1,000 representatives from 99 communities in 32 US states.
The World Jewish Congress’s expressed goal was Jewish unity and the strengthening of Jewish political influence in order to assure the survival of the Jewish people, which involved the creation of a Jewish state. 230 delegates representing 32 countries gathered for the first WJC assembly.
In its fight against growing anti-Semitism in Europe, the WJC pursued a two-pronged approach: the political and legal sphere (mainly the lobbying of the League of Nations and public statements) on the one hand, and an attempt to organize a boycott of products from countries such as Nazi Germany on the other. Given the weakness of the League of Nations vis-à-vis Germany and the successful efforts by the Nazi regime to stave off an economic boycott of German products, neither track proved not very effective.
With the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, the WJC headquarters moved from Paris to Geneva to facilitate communications with Jewish communities in Europe. In the summer of 1940, by which time most of Europe had fallen under Nazi occupation, the World Jewish Congress’s headquarters were moved to New York to share office space with the American Jewish Congress, and a special WJC office was set up in London. The British Section of the WJC was tasked with acting as the European representative of the organisation.
After the war, the WJC took a leading role in rebuilding Jewish communities in Europe, pushed for indemnification and reparation claims against Germany, provided assistance to displaced persons and survivors of the Holocaust, and advocated for the punishment of Nazi leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The World Jewish Congress notably took part in the formulation of the principles governing the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal and furnished evidence against Nazi leaders to the US prosecutors. The WJC also supported the foundation of the United Nations Organisation in 1945. In 1947, the organisation became one of the first NGOs to be granted consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Although its principal purpose was to defend the rights of Jews in the Diaspora, the WJC always actively supported the aims of Zionism, i.e., the creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine. The WJC, the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, the World Jewish Restitution Organisation, and the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims, founded in 1998, have secured payments for the victims and survivors of the Holocaust from Germany, Swiss banks, insurance companies, and other parties totaling $20 billion.
Coming from very little, it is an extremely powerful and wealthy organisation. We need to build something comparable. However, we are at the drawing board stage, and this is a work in progress which nonetheless will happen.
3. Comparison of Texts
The contemporary constitution of the WJC has a statement of aims which I have adapted for our purposes, which I will go through below. It would form the basis of our own World European Congress.
Now, when reading the Summary Statement one must keep in mind the following: the high sounding and outrageous rhetoric (if such it is), is the original, authentic voice of the claims of the Jewish people on their own behalf. This is what they lay claim to for themselves, as of right. Why should our claims be any less than their own? If you cringe at some of the claims, remember that the Jews do not cringe and would in fact severely reproach you, if not prosecute you, for denying those claims.
For the most part I have simply replaced the word “Jewish” with the word “European.”
The main aims of the organisation are to mobilize the European people and their nations against the demographic onslaught, to fight for equal political and economic rights everywhere, and particularly for the European minorities in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and other former colonies of the European peoples, to support the establishment of European National Homes in Europe and elsewhere and to create a worldwide European representative body based on the concept of the unity of the European people, democratically organised and able to act on matters of common concern. Governments and international organisations need to provide adequate resources for the fight against hatred, notably by providing security to European communities and by improving education. Laws against racial dispossession and other forms of racism need to be adopted and enforced properly in every country: All forms and expressions of anti-white sentiment, multiculturalism, affirmative action, cultural relativism, xenophobia, and intolerance are unacceptable and have to be condemned, and the full force of the law needs to be applied to those who are a danger to democracy, liberty, and European communities. Marches by extremist, anti-White groups should be banned where national laws provide for such a possibility. Governments and political leaders should condemn such events and work together with local European communities.
Commentary on the Summary Statement.
In addition to changing “Jewish” to “European,” the term “Nazi” has simply been replaced by “demographic.”
Fighting to support European minorities: keep in mind that this will be an increasingly important one for our people, as London, I believe, is already over 50% non-European, and the entire USA is heading for this status in less than 30 years.
“Zion” has naturally been replaced by “Europe.”
Funding and education are the key: Jews are entrenched in education, and they receive money from the state. Notice that they claim this as of right — so should we.
Using the term “racism”: although this is a meaningless, empty term (less than 100 years old, and invented by Trotsky), if it is redefined to suit our purposes and interests I see no harm in using it. For example, multiculturalism and affirmative action can easily be made to fit under the term, as they violate basic reciprocal justice and are often motivated by ethnic animus. We should not be shamed by our enemies to use their terms against them, politically.
I thought I would excise the last two sentences, but as it is in the original, it shows that Jews say immediately after having said that they are all for democracy in fact that democracy stands or falls by their political objectives, that freedom of association should be banned if it is against their political objectives. I am in two minds whether to include this passage. Can we afford to be as brazen as the Jews? Freedom of Speech, Thought, and Association are ideas that arose solely from our European heritage and they are worth preserving. The fact of the matter is though that they are not preserved in contemporary Western societies – even in the US the Bill of Rights has come under increasing attack and compromise. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights lists freedom of speech as a fundamental human right, yet it is contradicted and undermined in most nations by hate speech legislation of one type or another and by later treaties and conventions by the UN itself.
Proposed Constitutional Aims and Purposes
Article 1. The World European Congress
a. The World European Congress is a voluntary association of representative European bodies, communities, and organisations throughout the world.
b. The World European Congress is politically non-partisan and represents the plurality of the European people.
c. The World European Congress does not wish to subvert the individual particularity of European peoples and European nation states, but rather our peoples and nation states collectively face international subversion which requires parallel organisation and opposition, and the recognition of a shared interest and cause.
Article 2. Mission Statement
a. The mission of the World European Congress is to foster the unity and represent the interests of the European people, and to ensure the continuity and development of its religious, spiritual, cultural, and social heritage. The World European Congress seeks, among other things:
- to enhance solidarity among European communities throughout the world and, recognizing the centrality of Europe to contemporary European identity, to strengthen the bonds of European communities and Europeans in the Diaspora with Europe.
- to secure the rights, status and interests of Europeans and European communities and to defend them wherever they are denied, violated or threatened;
- to encourage and assist the creative development of European social, religious, and cultural life throughout the world, to support European education and the development of European values, and to ensure European continuity and the transmittal of European legacy from one generation to another;
- to assist European communities in strengthening their European identities and in confronting problems in the political, legal, social, religious, cultural, or economic spheres;
- to represent and act on behalf of Member Communities and the European people as a whole vis-à-vis governments, governmental authorities, international and intergovernmental organisations and authorities, non-governmental organisations, inter-faith groups, other faiths and civic bodies;
- to preserve the memory of our Holocausts and of the millions of Europeans and countless European communities destroyed during the fraternal and foreign wars, and to advocate on behalf of their survivors and their families;
- to combat anti-white racism in all its manifestations and to raise the consciousness of the public at large to the dangers inherent in any incitement to religious, racial, or ethnic intolerance, oppression or persecution;
- to foster, support and participate in inter-faith dialogue between Christian and pagan sects; and
b. The World European Congress will strive to co-operate with governments, nations, organisations, and individuals, to accomplish the above goals in the spirit of peace, freedom, equality, and justice.
Commentary on articles 1 and 2 of the World European Congress.
The first two sections of Article 1 only replace “Jewish” with “European,” otherwise they are identical to the original document of the WJC.
Article 1c is wholly my original contribution: to differentiate it from the EU, and to re-assure individual European nations that a supra-national, one-size-fits-all approach is not our aim.
Bullet-points 1–5 are virtually identical to the original WJC document.
Bullet point 6 deals with the Holocaust, and is one possible approach to the issue.
Bullet point 7 attempts a re-definition of terms to our own advantage.
Bullet point 8 addresses our own religious issues.
Article 2b is identical to the original WJC document (merely replacing WJC with our own Congress).
4. Can it be more than a Dream?
The proposed location would be Phuket, Thailand. Some questions may arise from this: Why Thailand, why not a European majority location? There are four strong reasons for this choice of location:
- Phuket Thailand is internationally central between all European inhabited continents.
- The costs are cheap in comparison to New York, London, Moscow, Sydney, and places within the countries of those cities.
- There is a large white presence at the location with tourists and expats from across the European world.
- As a non-white country it is politically free on these issues and has no “antifa” or state funded mafia groups to cause disturbances.
In addition to all that, it is a beautiful and relaxing location with attractions beyond the conference itself.
Is it a case of the tail wagging the dog? To continue the analogy, the fact of the matter is: the dog is in peril, if the tail does not start wagging there will be neither dog nor tail.
Is this logistically possible? Yes. The aim could be for 100 people/groups, and 50 as the lowest possible viable number.
1. Def.: holocaust (“burnt [offering to god(s)] of the complete [animal]”) a Latinized Greek word for an ancient, ethnically diverse practice; a pagan and Biblical term for this type of sacrifice. Figurative holocausts are numerous among our peoples, the last century alone offering the following holocausts: WWI, the Russian Revolution, the Armenian Genocide, the Graeco-Turkish War, WWII, the Holodomor, Istanbul Riots, Detroit, American urban riots, and countless others in prior centuries.