Reclaiming Our Home

Once beyond the village, where the cottages ceased abruptly, on either side of the road they could smell through the darkness the friendly fields again and they braced themselves for the last long stretch, the home stretch, the stretch that we know is bound to end, some time, in the rattle of the door latch, the sudden firelight, and the sight of familiar things greeting us as long-absent travelers from far overseas.

-- The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame

_________________________________

The last Christian king was Charles of Austria, who ruled the Austrian-Hungarian Empire for only two years during World War I. He died much too young and in exile in 1922. The great democracies, America, France, and Britain (great in the sense that Satan is great) all decided that such things as Christian kings and Christian empires were obsolete. Democracies which promised freedom and enfranchisement were the wave of the future. But the future led to Gulags and legalized abortion, because abstractions in politics as well as in religion are code words for tyranny and bloodshed.

Charles knew, in contrast to the tyrants of the modern democracies, that ‘the people’ can never be sovereign. Only God is sovereign, and a Christian king rules as God’s caretaker. Charles viewed his kingship as a consecration to God. Implicit in his vow of fealty to the crown was a pledge to maintain the ancient Christian traditions of the Austrian-Hungarian people.

I know there are a few figure-head kings and queens floating around in Europe today, but do they take seriously the oath that Charles took seriously? Do they want to preserve and defend a Christian people’s ancient traditions? Of course not. In fact, I think the modern rulers of the European countries want to do the exact opposite. They are doing everything in their power to destroy the ancient traditions of their respective nations. What is more traditional to a nation than its people and its faith? And what are Britain and the other European countries destroying when they allow colored invaders into their nation? They are destroying their people and their people’s faith.

The essential flaw of the American experiment in democracy, which has been slavishly copied by all the other European nations, is this: there cannot be a government where the will of the people is sovereign. Where is the check on the people’s authority? What happens when the will of the people conflicts, as in the case of legalized abortion and so many other modern perversions, with the will of God? What happens is that the will of God is set aside. And you cannot protest against a government “by the people and for the people,” because the people are sovereign. A tyrannical king can be deposed when he violates his oath to protect and defend his nation’s people and sacred traditions, but a tyrannical, anti-Christian democracy is an unending nightmare because the people can never be deposed. The right to vote is a satanic joke; what does it avail a man to be able to vote if he is only voting to determine which democratic devil shall rule?

It is unconscionable that Christians, with the daily murder of infants before our eyes, should seek to perpetuate the ungodly myth that our nation was founded on sound religious principles. The history of our nation’s founding is not lost in the obscure mists of time. It took place a relatively short time ago: a coalition of 18th century rationalists, represented by Jefferson, John Adams, Franklin, and Madison, got together with some evangelical Christians, such as Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, and tried to come up with a government. The religious input came from the Protestant evangelicals, who very much wanted a government that acknowledged itself as Christian. However, they also were dead-set against a state religion. They had a great fear of a state-supported Anglicanism or a throne-and-altar Catholic state. In addition, the Baptists were worried about a Presbyterian state, the Presbyterians were worried about a Baptist state, the Methodists were worried about the Congregationalists, and so on.

The rationalist deists used the evangelicals’ fear of a state religion to place ambiguous phrases in the Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution that could be interpreted in a religious sense or in a non-religious sense. (1) The primary example of this double-speak was the phrase “nature and nature’s God” that was placed in the Declaration of Independence. An evangelical would interpret those words in a Christian way. Nature’s God is Christ, of course. But a deist believes nature is God, and Christ is just an ordinary man subject to nature’s God. The deist would then interpret the phrase, “nature and nature’s God,” in a non-religious sense. The same thing occurred in the oft-quoted ‘separation of Church and State’ clause of the Constitution. The evangelicals interpreted the clause as excluding a state religion, not as excluding Christianity from public life. The deists themselves did not necessarily anticipate a situation in which all religions except the Christian religion could be taught in our schools, but the 1963 Supreme Court decision (Murray vs. Curlett) banning school prayer is in keeping with the spirit of 18th century rationalism. When the conservatives claim that the Founding Fathers never intended to ban Christianity from our public life, they are only partly right; one must ask: which Founding Father?

You have, from our nation’s beginning, a federal government poised, python-like, to slowly squeeze the religious life out of its own people. The Southern states rebelled against that federal government, and they were defeated. Indeed, every group and every person who has gone against the federal government has, in the earthly sense, lost.

Today, isolated attacks on the federal government from the outside by such individuals as Timothy McVeigh are ineffectual because the McVeigh types only invoke pagan gods. Their attacks are used by the government as excuses to further tighten its coils. And attacks from the inside always fail, because the secular principles of pluralism planted in our Constitution serve to render Christians impotent, as illustrated by the betrayal some years back of Pat Robertson and the so-called Christian Coalition. When Newt Gingrich informed them that welfare reform, reverse discrimination, crime, and taxes, could be included in the Contract with America but that abortion could not be, the “Christians” acquiesced. Why? Because there is no consensus among the American people on the issue of abortion as there is on the other issues. And in a democratic society, don’t you know, we must have a consensus, because the people are sovereign.

What is needed among White Europeans is a spirit of separatism. Christians should separate from the federal government. Of course, the federal government will not allow us to separate from them. The Leviathan, aptly named by Donald Davison, needs victims to squeeze in its coils.

I hear quite frequently from practical conservatives that separation is 1) immoral and 2) impractical. But quite the contrary is true. American democracy is immoral, and to stay wedded to an experiment in Satanism is immoral. Americans and the Europeans who have followed them down the democratic path are being disloyal to their European homelands. They have replaced home, hearth, and nation with an abstract notion of an abstract people. They have become men without a country:

Breathes there the man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land?
Whose heart hath ne'er within him burned,
As home his footsteps he hath turned,
From wandering on a foreign strand?
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim,--
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonored, and unsung.

--Sir Walter Scott - The Lay of the Last Minstrel

The second point, that separation is impractical, could only be advanced by a modern, democratic blasphemer. If American democracy is evil, then we must separate from it and attack it whether it is “practical” or not. And who’s to say that an attack on the Leviathan is not practical? In the fairy tales of the European people, the hero is always the man who seems impractical. He takes no heed of the dragon guarding the castle in which the fair maiden is imprisoned. All he sees is a maiden in distress, and it stands upon him to act and not to vacillate and count the cost.

When a King such as Charles of Austria views his coronation as a pledge to serve his people in a nation where God is sovereign, every act of that King which serves his nation is recorded in heaven. And so are the actions of the humblest citizen recorded in heaven if they serve a nation which acknowledges God as sovereign. But where are the actions recorded of a people who serve a democratic government dedicated to the rule of the people? I believe it’s called ‘Hell.’

Every white European serves a nation within a nation. There is an eternal Britain, an eternal France, and so on, that exists within the multi-racial entities that have supplanted the old European nations. But the European nations still exist beneath the surface of the new Tower of Babel nations. I view the European’s position vis-à-vis his nation as being similar to the situation of Mr. Toad, Ratty, Badger, and the Mole. They, the legitimate rulers, have been ousted by Third-World stoats and weasels, through the suicidal folly of one of their own. They must reconquer what the animals call “Toad Hall” and what we of course call Europe. The only difference is that the heroic reconquest in The Wind in the Willows takes place in a compressed period of time. It will take the European much longer to reclaim his home than it did the heroes of The Wind in the Willows, but since it is our home that we are fighting for we will carry on the fight to the tenth generation and beyond until every single stoat and weasel has been driven back to the Wild Wood.
_______________________________
(1) Every year the conservatives publish books telling us how conservative the American Constitution was and is. “If we could just get back to it,” they cry. The conservatives always ignore the liberal rhinoceros in the living room. How has the Constitution been interpreted? It has always been interpreted in a radical, anti-European light. The Constitution won’t save us; the European faith will.