The Roles of Nations and Real Social Justice, Not the Destructive Social Marxism of the Left


Today’s Europe if it were divided into some of its constituent nations.

– 10 August 2015 –


Janus-smallLeftists like to talk about social justice these days.  By social justice, they refer to a social Marxism in which the government elevates oppressed groups at the expense of groups whom the social justice warriors perceive to dominate society.  In the United States, for instance, black people and homosexuals are advanced at the expense of white, Christian, masculine men.

Of course, this form of social justice is unnatural and destructive to every group in society, be they at the top or at the bottom.  It is a societal disease that particularly harms the nation that has embraced it.

I advocate a different form of social justice, one that recognizes the rights of nations.


There doesn’t seem to be a set definition for the term “nation“.  For the purposes of this article I define a nation as a group of people who share common history, language, culture, etc. who are more or less consciously bonded together, and not necessarily politically.  Some people might call this an ethnic group, and that term might work, but it seems too generic to me.

Nearly everyone on Earth, whether they are aware of it or not, belongs to one nation or another, be it great or small. Certainly there are some outcasts, but even a half-caste will usually identify with one nation more than another.  If one isn’t sure to what nation he belongs, he should spend some time in a foreign land.  The foreigners will help him figure it out, if only as a frame of reference.

And people have belonged to nations since prehistoric times.  Nations are as human as humanity itself.  In the Bible, God repeatedly worked with nations as single entities, forging them together, raising them up, tearing them down, and destroying them altogether according to His judgment.  And He still does this today.


Ancient nations from the Book of Genesis. In the Bible, God forged nations, rose them up, and then destroyed them according to His judgment. This has not changed.

Like healthy individuals, healthy nations live and grow and try to survive.  They compete with others.  They try to improve themselves.  Like people, nations can die.

And nations, similar to people, have the God-given right to live and to pursue their own interests.

Nations and Social Justice

Currently the concept of nation is under attack.  Globalists see nations as a barrier to world commerce and political unification.  Leftists in general see nations as agents of inequality and war.  And the enemies of nationhood are currently winning, with more and more people deliberately failing to identify with their own nations or uphold their nations’ interests.

If any group of people needs social justice in today’s world, it is the nation.

The Survival of Nations

In order to survive, a nation should be expected to serve its own interests before those of others.  Just as a family meets its own needs and well-being before those of another family, a nation should be expected to consider its own advancement before those of others.

Today, Western nations are expected to harbor millions of foreigners, allowing them to build colonies inside Western territories while the Western nations suppress their own distinctions of culture, language, and genetic identity.  This is suicidal genocide.


Western nations are expected to harbor millions of foreigners while their own distinctions of culture, language, and genetic identity are suppressed. This is suicidal genocide.

The Just Treatment of Nations Under the Rule of Other Nations

Within many nations exist other, smaller nations.  I divide these simply into those who belong, those who are guests, and those who invaded.

Nations who belong are those who possess long-standing historical ties to the territories of the host nation.  For example, in the United States we have the descendants of black slaves who were brought here before 1865.  We also have American Indians and Mexicans who were present in the lands that we occupied.  Most large nations around the world have smaller nations in their midst who have lived with them for centuries, people like the Sorbians in Germany, or the Basques in Spain.  These all belong in the midst of their host nations.

For nations who belong, the host nation should allow them a degree of social autonomy and separation in order for the smaller nation to maintain its cultural and biological identity, but not to the detriment of the host nation.

While the smaller nations can be expected to try to advance themselves at the expense of the host, the host nation cannot be expected to make concessions beyond its own well-being.  The Sorbians in Germany can justly demand to educate their children in the Sorbian language, but they can’t expect the Germans to fund these schools, for example.

For nations or parts of nations who are guests within the host nation, those who are relatively recent immigrants, or the descendants of those recent immigrants, the host nation owes them no accommodation at all.  These people arrived willingly to the land of their hosts and should live according to the rules of the host nation.  If these immigrants don’t like the rules, they should leave.  That said, they are invited guests to the host nation, and the host does have the duty to provide these people with equal protection and due process of law.

For uninvited guests to the host nation, otherwise known as invaders, the host nation has the right to either treat them as guests or as enemies.  Invaders have no rights to live in the host country or to the same legal protections as official guests.  They live totally at the discretion of the hosts.

Also, a nation has the responsibility to protect the people over whom it has authority from threats of war, famine, or other widespread strife to the reasonable extent of its powers. This can be done locally or nationally or otherwise according to the customs of the nation, but it is the nation’s responsibility if it wants to maintain justice.

The Just Treatment of Deviant Groups and Social Classes Within a Nation

Every nation above a certain size will have sub-groups who deviate from the norm in either religion, culture, philosophy, or behavior.  In the United States, this would include Mormons, the Amish, feminists, bikers, or even homosexuals.  So long as these sub-groups pose no harm to the dominant nation, they should be justly tolerated.  Deviancy will exist, but it is within the rights of a nation to weed out or suppress the deviants who threaten the nation’s well-being.  Deviancy out of control will unravel a nation.


Sub-groups who pose no harm to the dominant nation should be justly tolerated. Deviancy will exist, but it is within the right of a nation to weed out or suppress the deviants who threaten the nation’s well-being. Deviancy out of control will unravel a nation.

Concerning social classes, the wealthiest classes should not take unjust advantage of the poor. While I don’t advocate redistribution of wealth, the poor should be protected from predatory lending, excess taxation, and confiscatory policies. To the extent that the poor form a distinct culture, that culture should be respected so long as it doesn’t hurt the overall nation.

The Interaction of Equal Nations

International relations might seem like a Darwinian free-for-all, with the strongest nations bullying the weakest.  Eventually some sort of balance of power is achieved, with nations banding together to prevent the dominance of a foe.  Some might say that such a system can’t work in a modern, nuclear-armed world.  But that system still largely exists today.  We still have a violent world where large groups of nations band together to protect themselves and their mutual interests, and we still have the constant threat of war.  I propose that leagues of sovereign nations maintain an international balance of power, much like that achieved during the 19th Century before that system was sabotaged by the globalist snakes.

Critics might say that wars will still happen.  Of course they will!  Wars as a whole are unavoidable; I just propose their mitigation.

It might sound terrible to say, but wars are a part of humanity, fallen as we are.  The establishment of a New-World-Order government won’t eliminate war; it will simply change war from a struggle between nations to struggles between sub-groups or by insurgents against the government. And it will probably be much bloodier than the world is today.

So what am I proposing?

I call for the suppression or the elimination of the groups who are trying to eliminate national sovereignty across the world, just as they are trying to destroy race, religion, family, gender, and even humanity itself.  They are achieving this by undermining national and local economies and through the manipulation of money, through supranational governments, by the large-scale migration of peoples, and by the corruption of national cultures.

Nations answer only to God, and the only world government that I want to see is that which is headed by Jesus Christ.

I propose a world of sovereign nations who honor the rights of other sovereign nations.


Generally speaking, each nation in the world should be allowed the freedom to exist as a distinct people, to varying degrees under their own social laws, in the places where they belong. And each class of people within a nation should be tolerated to the extent that they pose no threat to the nation, free from predatory exploitation. And a nation has the responsibility to protect those people under its authority.  The struggle between nations should be restricted only by the nations themselves.

Obviously the United States and the rest of the West no longer believe in the concept of nations, and we can see that the Western nations who no longer believe in themselves are falling apart. Other peoples who adopt the secular, universalist, humanist philosophies of the modern world are also starting to fall apart.

The international elites want to destroy the concept of nation for the same reason they want to destroy the concept of race, religion, family, and gender. These stand as barriers to their rule. The elites want to rule a people who have no allegiance to anything but their own personal pleasures.  Such people have no reason to fight.

Leave a comment


  1. Reblogged this on Brittius.


  2. Good article!
    If you’ll forgive my OCD, this line:

    ‘For example, in the United States we have the descendants of black slaves who were brought here before 1865’

    would more accurately read:

    ‘…slaves who were brought here before 1808’ which is when importation of slaves was banned.

    ‘While I don’t advocate redistribution of wealth, the poor should be protected from predatory lending, excess taxation, and confiscatory policies. ‘

    Where do you stand on usury and inheritance taxes?


  3. Thanks, Roger. The reason I used the 1865 date was that while the importation of slaves was barred by law in 1808, there remained an illicit trade in African or Caribbean slaves to some extent or another after 1808 but before 1865, particularly before 1830 when Great Britain ended slavery and began policing the slave trade. I don’t imagine that there were very many of these illicit slaves, but they would have mixed into the existing slave population.

    I am not a fan of usury and believe it should be highly restricted, or even banned outright. In particular I would like to see, at the very least, the end of usury at high interest rates that we see with a lot of credit cards and payday loans. Payday loans in particular target the poorest and stupidest among us, and to some extent a responsible society should protect these people from themselves. Just like we should ban recreational narcotic use and prostitution. A nation will become as corrupt as the level of vice that it tolerates. I wouldn’t mind seeing the elimination of lottery tickets and strip clubs, too, but in today’s society this would be considered draconian.

    I tend to oppose inheritance taxes for the simple reason that the taxation of existing property, including money, seems inherently unjust. I prefer to see taxes on consumption or on imports.

    Together both of these policies would slow down the economy and cause a massive depression. Our economy is based on the monetary equivalent to a diet of energy drinks and candy bars, and we don’t have any fat to spare. To switch to a diet of meat and potatoes would cause a shock to the system that would probably kill us. So I do recognize that changes have to be gradual and that they will likely never happen before a general collapse of society.


  4. Oh, and concerning your OCD, I encourage people to correct my factual errors. I might not agree necessarily, but it keeps me vigilant, and I try to be fair about it.


  1. Concerning the Jews | FINES ET INITIA

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: