A recurring subject within nationalism is the possibility of bringing a case for the genocide of peoples of European descent by coercive replacement before the International Criminal Court. The attractions of doing so are very great. If it were to be successful even in relation to one of our peoples, governments in the West would be forced to develop demographic policies incorporating protective measures for all, or face legal challenge themselves. Not only would new immigration without thought for the security of our existence have to come to an end, but the population mechanics of generational replacement would have to be addressed. And for that, large-scale programmes of repatriation would have to be instituted.

Further, the post-colonial economic model of the West, built on debt payable out of growth in GDP consequent upon population increase, would have to be substantially amended. The debt model itself would be open to question in a new way, and the lineaments of a new and free life for European men and women might be glimpsed.

Even if European governments contrived to win the judgement, the demographic crisis of the West will have been aired in the most public and intellectually respectable way, challenging the great embargo on speaking racially. Political correctness, anti-racism, and the legal war on discrimination will, for the first time, have been accurately cast as strategies of coercion. The nationalist worldview will have slipped its bonds. The gateway to free speech and participation in public discourse will stand open.

That is the theory, anyway.

Unsurprisingly, there are some formidable hurdles to such a happy outcome. Even securing a trial would be very difficult. The ICC is the only permanent tribunal with jurisdiction over the crime of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity but it has only heard cases of the latter two. The prosecutions for genocide mounted against defendants from the Bosnian War and the Rwandan genocide were handled by international courts established prior to the ICC specifically for the purpose. In a decade of operation the ICC has yet to bring forward a single prosecution for genocide. It would be remarkable indeed to turn around the liberal mentality of the ICC, steeped in the progressive, universalistic agenda of human rights as it is, and have its august consideration given to an analysis, however true, that today only the renegades of white nationalism espouse.

Even if one succeeded in the task of getting the court to consider an application, the charge of conspiracy to commit a European genocide by replacement, while it falls notionally within the definitions of an indirect or mental, rather than direct or physical, offence, would struggle to satisfy the evidential requirements which case law has established. These cover both the crime itself and its intentionality. Both must be proven, and proven of named individuals, not governments or army commands or other agencies. Compelling evidence and/or testimony pertaining to each named individual must be gathered. The European genocide, however, is not merely a collective criminal act in any one government’s period in office but an act of successive governments. Conceptually and evidentially it’s a very tough ask unless full documentational disclosure is granted by the government of the day. For that, the long record of paranoid governmental secrecy does not auger at all well.

Another difficulty is that the slow, soft nature of a European genocide by replacement, sans mortar shells, sans prison camps, sans mass graves, sans mass rape by men in military uniform, begs a question about what a genocide should look like. Thus far, the court has opened investigations into eight very bloody affairs in Africa played out in the glare of the international media. The desperate weakness of the victims is laughably absent from leafy and well-to-do, middle-class England or the ultra-fashionable Parisian 6th arrondissement. It strains the credibility of anyone who is in the least willing to have their credibility strained, and every liberal-at-heart lawyer falls into that category.

For there to be any chance of the court entertaining our claim it would surely be necessary to manage the court’s narrow perspective on genocide, and that of the human rights movement generally. The fundamental presumption should be that the existing legal sanctions against genocide, adopted by the UN General Assembly under Resolution 260 (III) on 9th December 1948, provide a right to life of all peoples and ethnic groups in whole. This is so regardless that there is no Convention guaranteeing that as a positive right. The element of prevention in the 1948 Convention implies as much in the breach. Without the positive state there could be no negative guarantee, and I don’t see how an argument to the contrary can be successful, should it be attempted.

This, if accepted, would mean that European peoples are guaranteed protection under the Convention – unless government successfully employs the argument that Europe’s peoples are artificial constructs without clear boundaries, and with a long history of immigration. If these peoples become progressively, say, more Arab or Sub-Saharan African, well, that is just a continuation of the same process, and it is blatant racism to draw a line at ethnic change there or anywhere else.

There are two possible counter-arguments to this. The first is that the 1948 Convention, in its very helpful Article 2 (c):

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

… provides a clear line of attack whereby a demographic replacement by means of the majoritisation of the immigrant populations is sufficient to establish the physical destruction of the European population and, therefore, their differential nature from the non-European populations (yes, I know they are obviously different, but this is the world of government and international law we’re talking about). There can, of course, be no physical destruction if one population segues seamlessly into another. But the principle of replacement curtails that argument.

To establish it means concentrating on only one of the three modes of replacement which are actually in train, and that is direct generational replacement by differential birthrates and by on-going chain and economic immigration. Census records, imperfect though they are, demonstrate the trend:

Percentage of white British in selected urban authorities in 2001 and 2011 Bedford 80.8% (2001) - > 71.5% (2011)

Birmingham 65.6% (2001) - > 53.1% (2011)

Blackburn 76.1% (2001) - > 66.5% (2011)

Bristol 88.0% (2001) - > 77.9% (2011)

Bradford 76.1% (2001) - > 63.9% (2011)

Brighton 88.0% (2001) - > 80.5% (2011)

Bournemouth 92.5% (2001) - > 83.8% (2011)

Cardiff 88.3% (2001) - > 80.3% (2011)

Cambridge 78.5% (2001) - > 66.0% (2011)

Coventry 78.3% (2001) - > 66.6% (2011)

Crawley 84.5% (2001) - > 72.1% (2011)

Derby 84.4% (2001) - > 75.3% (2011)

Gravesham 87.2% (2001) - > 77.1% (2011)

Ipswich 90.8% (2001) - > 82.9% (2011)

Kirklees 83.7% (2001) - > 76.7% (2011)

Leeds 89.2% (2001) - > 81.1% (2011)

Leicester 60.5% (2001) - > 45.1% (2011)

Liverpool 91.8% (2001) - > 84.8 (2011)

Luton 65.0% (2001) - > 44.6% (2011)

Manchester 74.5% (2001) - > 59.3% (2011)

Milton Keynes 86.8% (2001) - > 73.9% (2011)

Newcastle 90.7% (2001) - > 81.9% (2011)

Northampton 87.7% (2001) - > 76.6% (2011)

Norwich 93.5% (2001) - > 84.7% (2011)

Nottingham 81.1% (2001) - > 65.4% (2011)

Oxford 76.8% (2001) - > 63.6% (2011)

Peterborough 85.75 (2001) - > 70.9% (2011)

Portsmouth 91.9% (2001) - > 84.0% (2011)

Preston 83.1% (2001) - > 75.8% (2011)

Reading 80.6% (2001) - > 65.3% (2011)

Sandwell 78.0% (2001) - > 65.8% (2011)

Sheffield 89.2% (2001) - > 80.8% (2011)

Slough 58.3% (2001) - > 34.5% (2011)

Southampton 88.7% (2001) - > 77.7% (2011)

Swansea 95.7% (2001) - > 91.5% (2011)

Walsall 85.2% (2001) - > 76.9% (2011)

Wolverhampton 75.4% (2001) - > 64.5% (2011)

Wycombe 83.6% (2001) - > 75.9% (2011) Percentage of white British in London boroughs 2001 and 2011 Barking and Dagenham 80.9% (2001) - > 49.5% (2011)

Barnet 59.9% (2001) - > 45.5% (2011)

Bexley 88.0% (2001) - > 77.3% (2011)

Brent 29.2.% (2001) - > 18.0% (2011)

Bromley 86.5% (2001) - > 77.4% (2011)

Camden 52.7% (2001) - > 44.0% (2011)

City of London 68.3% (2001) - > 57.5% (2011)

Croydon 63.7% (2001) - > 47.3% (2011)

Ealing 44.9% (2001) - > 30.4% (2011)

Enfield 61.2% (2001) - > 40.5% (2011)

Greenwich 70.6% (2001) - > 52.3% (2011)

Hackney 44.1% (2001) - > 36.2% (2011)

Hammersmith & Fulham 58.0% (2001) - > 44.9% (2011)

Haringey 45.3% (2001) - > 34.7% (2011)

Harrow 49.9% (2001) - > 30.9% (2011)

Havering 92.0% (2001) - > 83.3% (2011)

Hillingdon 72.5% (2001) - > 52.2% (2011)

Hounslow 55.8% (2001) - > 37.9% (2011)

Islington 56.8% (2001) - > 47.7% (2011)

Kensington & Chelsea 50.1% (2001) - > 39.3% (2011)

Kingston upon Thames 75.9% (2001) - > 63.1% (2011)

Lambeth 49.6% (2001) - > 39.0% (2011)

Lewisham 57.0% (2001) - > 41.5% (2011)

Merton 64.0% (2001) - > 48.4% (2011)

Newham 33.8% (2001) - > 16.7% (2011)

Redbridge 57.5% (2001) - > 34.5% (2011)

Richmond upon Thames 78.7% (2001) - > 71.4% (2011)

Southwark 52.2% (2001) - > 39.7% (2011)

Sutton 83.7% (2001) - > 70.9% (2011)

Tower Hamlets 42.9% (2001) - > 31.2% (2011)

Waltham Forest 55.7% (2001) - > 36.0% (2011)

Wandsworth 64.8% (2001) - > 53.3% (2011)

Westminster 48.5% (2001) - > 35.2% (2011)

I saw this list in a DT comment and don’t know who made the original compilation, but my thanks to them anyway.

The other two engines of replacement, by the way, are ethnic cleansing or displacement of European people abroad, and the loss of ancient European family lines by miscegenation.

The second counter-argument to the government mendacity of the effective non-existence of European peoples, except as capacious bags into which any gene from anywhere can be stuffed, is the proof of indigeneity. This is more problematic than it might seem. The term “indigenous” is highly politicised. Anthropologists cannot agree on a definition for it. The human rights industry sees it in terms of oppressed and colonised archaic Third World tribes. However, it should be possible to advance the idea that indigeneity implies not the absence of genes from elsewhere – all peoples have genes from elsewhere - but the development of genetic relatedness on the land. All groups who satisfy this requirement for relatedness (or kinship or shared distinctive genes) are indigenous to the land in question.

But acceptance of that proposal and/or the other about replacement won’t bring Europeans today under the protection of Article 2(c) unless they can be successfully identified as a “group”. A definition will therefore have to be developed.

By the way, the judges of the ICC cannot be unaware of the demographic change to the people and the town who host them. The Hague’s wiki page tells us that “In November 2012 The Hague counted 504,260 inhabitants making it the third largest city of the Netherlands. The proportion of immigrants in The Hague was 50.5% and the ethnic Dutch population was roughly 49.5%.” Non-white immigrants comprised 34.6%, broken down as Surinam 47,038 (9.4%), Morocco 28,372 (5.6%), Turkey 37,982 (7.6%), Netherlands Antilles and Aruba 12,502 (2.5%), others 47,906 (15.9%).