Sunday, April 15, 2007

The Whiteman Unchained – Breaking the Chains of Democracy

There was an excellent article published in Middle American News (April 2007) by Chilton Williamson, Jr., titled “Our Rulers Are Choosing a New People.” Mr. Williamson’s point was that the reason our rulers do nothing about the Mexican invasion is because they want a new, nonwhite populace that will be “more docile, more pliant, more rulable.” He makes the distinction between a people with a tradition of government and a tradition of being ruled: “suffice it to note here that the Third World immigrants, coming as they do from ungovernable countries, are themselves ungovernable. And being ungovernable, they can only be ruled – unlike the majority of the U. S. population, which can still remember what real government is like, and should be.”

Mr. Williamson is certainly correct in his assessment. So wither do we go and what do we do? Magazines like Middle American News and The Truth At Last usually confine themselves to getting the information about the Third World invasion out to the public. It is helpful to get the information, but unfortunately the writers for these various publications have no solutions to suggest other than political ones. They want us to vote for anti-immigration candidates and to write protest letters and sign petitions. Those type of measures work when those who govern have not declared your race of people as non-people, but when you have been declared a non-person no candidate will be permitted to run who represents your interests and no letter you write or petition you sign will be taken seriously. There is no solution to the white man’s dilemma within the confines of democratic government.

When I was growing up my civic teachers were fond of repeating the quote, “Democracy is a terrible form of government, but all the others are so much worse.” But experience gives the lie to that oft-repeated assertion. I have no romantic attachment to the age of hereditary monarchies. The monarchial eras were depressing spectacles of bloody reign changes and bloody wars, but there was nowhere near the bloodshed in the monarchial wars as there was in the democratic wars, and no matter which side won, puritan or cavalier, at the end the nation remained white and Christian.

Now, we can’t suddenly turn a switch and go back to a non-Parliamentary, hereditary monarchy (even though I am a direct descendant of Charlemagne and am willing to take the job), but we can start thinking about working outside the framework of democratic government.

Democratic government is no longer a means to an end in the countries of the West. It is the end. Democratic government is the secular Zion that all mankind is supposed to be moving towards, but George Fitzhugh’s caveat should be heeded: “We are the friend of popular government, but only so long as conservatism is the interest of the governing class.” In the Northern part of our nation it is doubtful if conserving (and what else is there to conserve but Christian civilization) was ever the goal of the governing class. And in the Southern half of our country, conservatism ceased to be the interest after Reconstruction ended. During Reconstruction, the white ruling class was an unrecognized ruling class, but it was still a white Christian ruling class. But the unfortunate re-enfranchisement made the Southerners subject to the very un-conservative Northern governing class. That class’s complete triumph was completed during the ‘integration by bayonet era’ of the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Even if one disagrees with me about when our ruling class ceased to be conservative, and of course I use ‘conservative’ in the European sense of the word, not in the liberal capitalist sense, he surely must see that at the present date our ruling class has ceased to be conservative. And he must see, as Chilton Williamson has pointed out, that white Christians are the enemies of the American ruling class. They have declared war on us.

Now, of course we don’t have the power to mount a conventional war against the reigning American oligarchy, but we can start looking at ourselves as a conquered people under alien rule. It is ironic that the most law-abiding people in the United States, Christian white people, should also be the most disenfranchised. This has to stop. We are certainly more disenfranchised then the men who screamed, “Taxation without representation is tyranny.” And yet we fly the flag and obey the law. White people should not serve in the capitalist military, they should not honor the capitalist flag, and they should seek to undermine every major institution of American culture by any means at their disposal. They must stop being passive observers of the American oligarchy’s atrocities. The abortion issue is a case in point: I fully support the actions of Paul Hill, the preacher who shot an abortion doctor and his assistant as they walked to their jobs at the abortuary. However, very few of us have the courage for that type of martyrdom. I know I don’t. But there are plenty of things one can do, if one steps outside the parameters of the democratic oligarchy, to undermine the ruling class, although we do have to divest ourselves of the notion that it is white people who must obey the law.

In my twenties (I’m in my fifties now), I was a member of a group of people who met in front of an abortion clinic to protest what was going on in the clinic. Near the clinic was a bench with an advertisement for Planned Parenthood. A member of our group remarked that the advertisement was disgusting. And of course we all agreed with him. I then made a tactical error. I told the leader of our group, a dignified elderly gentleman, that I planned on coming back in the evening and destroying the bench. He was horrified. “You shouldn’t break the law,” he intoned, and he informed me he would report me to the police if I did. Do you see a disconnect there? After centuries of “abiding by the law,” white people have an instinctive horror of doing anything outside the law, even if that law has severed all ties to Christ and bound itself to Satan.

Once we divest ourselves of the notion that obeying the law is an absolute good, a whole vista of opportunities opens up in regard to protecting our borders and in protecting our homes. It took the Spaniards 770 years to rid their country of the Moslems, who are now returning. But they made a vow that they would “fight to the knife.” We need to take a similar vow.

Shakespeare is the supreme poet of the West. He speaks to us still, reaching out over the years as if the years were only a few short days. In Hamlet he depicts a young King, a legitimate King, who has a quite natural horror of shedding human blood. But as the full meaning of kingship and kinship comes upon him, he courageously, despite augury, does what needs to be done. He realizes that he cannot turn to anyone else to “set it right.” He is the legitimate king. If he won’t fight for legitimacy, who will?

And so it is with the white Christian remnant. We are the legitimate heirs of the civilization of Europe. If we won’t fight for it, who will?

Again, a direct military confrontation is out of the question. But a commitment to look beyond the confines of democratic government is a necessity. If anti-immigration candidates appear, we can certainly support them. But ultimately, it is not from the ruling, democratic oligarchy that we can get help. We will remain a conquered people if we expect aid from that quarter.

None of us know exactly where the lines of our will and God’s grace meet, but one thing is certain: If we don’t venture forth against the dragon, God cannot aid us in the battle. So far, the multi-cultural dragon is undefeated because he has yet to be challenged. I refuse to believe he is invincible.

Labels: , , ,