From our Archives . . .



Democracy is an idol in America, and most Americans worship devoutly at its altar. Majorities marshaled every two or four years have become our gods. They dictate to us how we shall live and die. Most say they wouldn’t have it any other way. That would be un-American. To be patriotic citizens, we must live with the results of the ballot, be it in a general election, a Supreme Court ruling, or a Congressional vote. The verdict is sacrosanct because it was reached through the democratic process of majority vote. We can grouse and complain about it but we see ourselves bound by it. Otherwise, how could we claim to be “good Americans?”

But our classroom civics books did not tell us that majority rule only works where there is already a consensus of sorts on the fundamental issues within a particular society. For instance, in a Christian nation that enjoys a high degree of homogeneity in its racial and ethnic make-up, language, institutions, and inherited culture, most matters up for a vote are largely superficial policy issues. They don’t tamper with the agreed-upon foundations of the society. However, in a multicultural and multiracial polyglot Empire such as ours is today, the concept of majority rule is often fraught with dire (and even deadly) consequences for the losers, especially if the winners bear a grudge.

As I write, the U. S. Senate has just voted 64-35 (with 60 votes needed) on a procedural issue to move ahead with Senate Bill 1639, the infamous Amnesty Bill. If the bill becomes law, which many of its supporters now think is inevitable, it will grant legal status to between 12-20 million illegal aliens already in the country. This will literally open the floodgates to tens of millions more Third World immigrants over the next few decades. It will mean the end of society as we know it.

Who stands to lose by this devil’s bargain? The descendants of America’s founding stock will be the losers. Our ancestors bequeathed us a republican society based on Christian moral principles, the English language, racial (and some degree of ethnic) homogeneity, and British legal and political institutions. All this will be gone with the wind when we throw open the golden door to unlimited immigration.

Only the South, as reflected in the votes of most of its Senators, opposed this radical transformation. Some 80% of Southerners oppose amnesty. It is not surprising, then, that of the 35 “no” votes, 17 came from the South. That’s almost half of the total opposition to S. 1639. Only 11 Southern Senators (including Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Trent “NAACP” Lott of Mississippi) voted for the Amnesty Bill.

Perhaps Americans in other regions outside the South are quite happy with the idea of giving the country away to Third World illegals. But if the rest of the country is determined to go straight to hell, is the South obliged to go along for the ride just so “democracy” can be upheld?

I say it’s time we put aside our reverence for the sort of majority rule that allows men such as Teddy Kennedy to determine the South’s fate. If this were merely a superficial policy matter it might be different. As it is, amnesty (and its sure aftermath) is literally a matter of life and death for our society. We are told that we must abide by a decision that could destroy our very way of life. Only a fool would consent to do so.

Again, democracy will not work in a multicultural, polyglot Empire. I shudder to think what will happen to our progeny when they become the numerical political minority. Will their rights be protected by the new regnant majority who are not products of Western Christian civilization? Or will a majority of wolves vote to devour a minority of sheep? I think you know the answer.

If, in the cause of furthering America’s democratic institutions, you place your future in the hands of those who have already betrayed you, then you and your children will ultimately be dispossessed of life, liberty, and property in the name of democracy (and other dubious Jew-created ideologies). You will have meekly acquiesced to the whim of a temporary majority because you did not have the nerve to walk away from the holy ground upon which you were commanded to kneel and worship the idol.

So what is the answer for us stubborn and contrary Southerners? For our self-preservation dare we cast aside voting and the idea of the “consent of the governed” for a monarchy or dictatorship? No. We must simply re-define the political and social entity to which we belong. To wit, we need an independent Southern Republic in which our interests and moral principles hold sway. No more being ruled by the Ted Kennedys of the world. In my eyes, such a course is not only desirable, it is necessary for our survival.

Killen, Alabama

26 June 2007