The Natives are RevoltingSQA welcomes the United Nations General Assembly's adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on 7 September 2007.
At last we feel the archival heritage of the British and English peoples have a safeguard against the tyranny of the European Union and the consequential cultural impact of EU membership, a UK government dominated by Scots, enforced mass immigration and metrification.
Typical indigenous inhabitants of Britain
The Declaration contains several clauses useful to the British and English resistance movements. Of particular interest and relevance is 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.
We take "states" to mean either the UK or the EU, the latter gradually acquiring sovereignty in all areas of state with UK defence and foreign policy set to follow within the next ten years according to recent EU statements.
Forced cultural assimilation in the form of the one-sided case for a common European heritage, metrification and the forced population transfer of EU and non-EU migrants into the UK especially the south east England are governmental and supra-national governmental actions bringing the UK government and EU into conflict with the Declaration. England is now the only part of the UK under direct UK government rule.
Article 9 evokes memories of the Metric Martyrs, convicted under still binding UK legislation despite European Commission statements that they do not expect English customary weights and measures to be suppressed:
Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right to belong to an indigenous community or nation, in accordance with the traditions and customs of the community or nation concerned. No discrimination of any kind may arise from the exercise of such a right.
Leading on from the Metric Martyrs' case in which EU was held to supersede UK law, we feel UK statute law and Common law are also upheld by the Declaration, article 27 of which states:
States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process, giving due recognition to indigenous peoples’ laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems.
Article 11, clause 1 clearly includes archival heritage and weights and measures in its purview:
Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature.
Article 12, clause 1 seems also to protect indegenous weights and measures:
Indigenous peoples have the right to manifest, practice, develop and teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies; the right to maintain, protect, and have access in privacy to their religious and cultural sites; the right to the use and control of their ceremonial objects; and the right to the repatriation of their human remains.
Article 13, clause is the most potentially useful to resisters:
Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.
Article 31 continues the theme of indigenous people being able to safeguard their culture:
Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures...They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.
We asked Benedict Crumplethorne, principal spokesman of SQA, to comment.
I couldn't be more delighted. This declaration is a refreshing development in the battle against political correctness and I look forward to it being used in favour of the English and British peoples in their campaign for cultural survival, in particular in defence of archivists who oppose anachronistic metric units in archival description.
We also invited Dr. Pochin Sturge, founder of the Institute for the Study of Mass Social and Foreign Behaviour (STUMSFOB) at Wigston Magna, Leicestershire, consultant anthropologist to SQA, to give his views.
Like Benedict, I am delighted. I have no doubt in anthropological terms the English and British qualify as indigenous peoples and are therefore covered by the new declaration. We should be most grateful to the UK government for supporting it. The genetic record indicates the non-immigrant portion of the UK's population is ancient indeed. Even the English are largely descended from the ancient British but as the people who have given their name to England, the Mother of Parliaments, the English are doubly assured their status as an indigenous people.
No doubt those who framed the Declaration had in mind such peoples as the Australian Aborigines, American Indians, Pygmies, the headhunters of Borneo, Montagnards of Vietnam and Maoris of New Zealand. This is interesting thinking but it shows the limitations of the mindset of the New World and post-colonial countries whose intellectual elite are inclined to think of indigenous peoples as being those in former white peoples' colonies. This is therefore a typical illustration of the way in which English and British history tends to confound foreigners.
The distinction between indigenous Britons and immigrants is not only highlighted by current mass immigration but by the tendency for second and third generation immigrants to apply for the citizenship of their forebears' country of origin, which rather indicates how they view themselves. Impliedly, the Declaration has created a most useful way of differentiating indigenous Britons from immigrants, just at a time when our rulers are obsessed with integration. There appears to be a conflict between Foreign Office and Home Office aspirations here, or at least in the legal advice they are receiving.
As to race, well, a people in anthropological terms is not necessarily a race so we do not have to prove we are a race apart, merely that we are anciently settled here "time out of mind" as it says in your musty old charters, hey, wot!
We thanked Benedict and Pochin for their contributions.
International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs: text of Declaration
Save our Cultural Heritage
A common cultural heritage?
A figment of our imagination
There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified(Edward Heath, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, 1973)