European Identity

"A person who feels himself deprived of his natural birthright, denounced, exposed to confiscation and death, because he avouches the rights of his king, the cause of his country, ceases on his part to be nice or precise in estimating the degree of retaliation which it is lawful for him to exercise in the requital of such injuries…"

--Sir Walter Scott

There are few spectacles in the world more disgusting than the American electoral process. Candidates parade before the American public in a horrific display of pride, avarice, and greed. It is not a case of trying to pick the least satanic candidate; it is a case, if you choose to vote, of picking which one of the seven deadly sins you prefer: the satanic pride of McCain, the blasphemy of Huckabee, or the fiendish feminism of Hillary Clinton. It really doesn’t make much difference. The only prerequisite for participation in the American electoral process is the absence of a soul.

Every European country from Denmark to Australia is in the same democratic boat as the U. S., and we are all hopelessly adrift. It is time to close the democratic chapter of the European peoples' history. No genuine European should object to closing the democratic chapter of our history, because the democratic chapter has not benefited Europeans.

Despite numerous differences, every European country has gone through the following stages of government: A system of tribes or clans, followed by a more centralized monarchy, followed by a republican form of government with either no monarch or with a constitutional monarch, followed by a democracy in which a few individuals rule in the name of the people. Only the first three systems of government, the clan, the monarchy, and the republic, are legitimate forms of government. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, and no one form can be artificially adapted to a country in the hope that the mere external form in and of itself will cure a country's ills. The sickness is organic, and so must the cure be organic.

The great advantage, from my standpoint, of the clannish system of government is the great sense of loyalty to kith and kin that such a system engenders. "Touch any one of my people and no place on this earth will be safe for you." And of course that fierce clannish loyalty is also the disadvantage of that system: "Father, do we really have to annihilate the entire Douglas clan just because Fergus Douglas stole a chicken from the farmyard of Alistair MacDonald?" "Yes, son, the honor of the clan is at stake; how can you doubt it?"

The absolute monarchy has the great advantage of a clear hierarchical line: "I serve the King, and the King serves Christ." But suppose the King is a tyrannical rotter: "I serve the King and the King serves Satan." Somehow that doesn’t sound very good.

The republican-constitutional monarchical system also has its advantages. For one thing, there are more peaceful transitions of power in that type of system. And one is less subject to the tyrannical rule of a despotic Richard III or King John. Scott, for instance, despite his Scottish sympathy for the Highlanders and his appreciation for the poetic days of Ivanhoe, thought the republican constitutional monarchy he lived under superior to the clannish or monarchial system. But he was always worried about unchecked Whiggery, which leads us to the one fault, an unredeemable one in my judgment, of the republican form of government. A system of diffused powers can lead, under pressure, to democratic egalitarianism, and democratic egalitarianism is institutionalized tyranny. Since rule "by the people" is an impossibility, a small cabal of men, less democratically representative than either a clannish government, a monarchy, or a republic, holds the reins of power in a democracy. While flying a theoretical flag called "the people," democratic leaders enjoy a despotic rule that would have put Richard III to shame.

The citadels of power in the U.S. present democratic government as the final stage on the road to Zion, because they are members of the ruling elite. But what are the fruits of democracy? Has democracy been good for white, Christian Europeans? No, it has not. In the democratic chapter of European history, we have seen total war on a scale that makes the monarchial and clannish wars look like private quarrels, and we see a democratic egalitarianism that is on the verge of eliminating the white race.

Is it so difficult to see that if white people do not divorce themselves from the ruling democratic oligarchies to form their own separate nation, separate economically, militarily, and socially, they will cease to exist as a distinct people? The democratic delusion is almost universally believed by the European people. Even those on the right wing suffer from it. But if we look the delusion in the face, we can see it for what it truly is, a deadly disease of the soul.

The "prolife" movement is a textbook example of how the democratic delusion destroys the soul. How should a Christian react to the slaughter of innocents? Should he vote for "prolife" candidates who do nothing about legalized abortion once elected or should he support those heroes who go after the murderers? We know what the democracy-loving heretic does. He worships democracy and not the living God, so he takes the democratic path through the woods and ends up entangled in the thorns and thistles of the giant liberal briar patch.

The democratic delusion is also destroying the anti-immigration movement. What needs to be done for white Europeans to survive? It is necessary that Europe and its satellites remain white. So all Europeans that are still European should seek to stop all nonwhite immigration and begin to repatriate all nonwhites. Is there a presidential candidate even suggesting that? Of course not. So if there is no candidate with a European agenda, how will the electoral process aid white people? Every election that is held simply places another nail in the coffin of the European.

I hear the democratic man saying that "It's not possible to repatriate the non-whites; there are too many of them and it would be immoral." But that is exactly the opposite of reality. It is not practical to force a utopian concept of racial egalitarianism on a nation, and it is immoral and contrary to Christianity to build a democratic, multi-racial tower of Babel that is opposed to the will of God. If the white man uses the same ingenuity in repatriation and segregation that he has used in building the Tower of Babel, the race problem could be solved in a genuine Christian fashion. (1)

The white man has stepped outside of himself and his own civilization. He looks on the colored invasion as something that is happening to a particular civilization that would be termed European and to a particular type of person who would be deemed a white man. But it is happening externally. The threat of invasion does not affect the white man inside, in his soul, because he has lost his soul. A white man, such as Charles Martel, would not be able to understand the white man of today. When his civilization was threatened by barbarians, he responded with his whole heart and soul to the threat. We certainly have declined. We now obey the democratic oligarchy's command that we refrain from even articulating the dreams and aspirations of white people. We are supposed to be a non-people, so even the articulated concept that European people can have legitimate dreams and aspirations as a particular, distinct people is an anathema to the ruling elite.

The Cyclops makes Odysseus deny his name: "My name is Nobody." And Odysseus finds that intolerable. He must, despite all dangers, reclaim his name again. "Cyclops, if ever mortal man inquire how you were put to shame and blinded, tell him Odysseus, sacker of Troy, took your eye: Laertes' son, whose home's on Ithaka!" Should not a Christian European be capable of equaling the pagan? Can we not step away from the multi-racial, democratic Cyclops and reclaim our identity? We are white, Christian Europeans, who do not bend their knee to false gods, be they democratic or barbarian. Our civilization is His civilization, and we shall not debate its right to exist nor recoil from any measure necessary to defend it.+
_________________________________________
(1) If one is not too literal minded, he can see a model for repatriation – the South. After Reconstruction ended, the white Southerners essentially formed two separate nations within a nation. I know liberals like to point out that the Jim Crow laws did not start up immediately after Reconstruction ended and that therefore integration was working, but it was precisely because white Southerners saw that voluntary segregation was not sufficient that they sought to give segregation legal sanction. The whole point is, of course, that it is the will currently lacking which prevents white people from defending their civilization, not the impracticality of the undertaking.