A Greater Europe

As our membership of the European Union begins to recede into the past, it’s time for a little reflection and a look into the future. Our 47 years as members first of the European Economic Community (the Common Market), and then of its successor the European Union, may have dominated the adult lives of most of us, but they will come to be seen as a mere historical blip in the eleven centuries since the kingdoms of England and Scotland coalesced out of the Dark Ages, and the three (generally) glorious centuries since those two kingdoms joined forces to become Great Britain. Soon enough our membership will join the Great Depression and the Abdication as the fading memory of  an ever dwindling contingent of the elderly until, as the Great War has now done, it passes from memory into history.

Whatever may or may not have been the advantages of our membership, the chief defect of the European Union, and the rock upon which that membership foundered, is the determination to pursue “ever closer union”. This is to be achieved by the gradual erosion of the distinct national identities of the member countries in favour of creating a new country, “Europe”. Freedom of Movement is an essential part of creating that new country as it is meant to bring into being a mobile, rootless population of “Europersons” in place of Poles and Portuguese, Belgians and British. Those at the heart of the EU project do not even hesitate to encourage and facilitate the mass immigration of non-Europeans to break down traditional national identities.  Such a project will never be acceptable to the great majority in any country because patriotism remains such a powerful and pervasive influence. It was the seemingly irresistible force of mass immigration colliding with the immovable object of British patriotism that triggered the Brexit explosion.

Many Brexiteers now look to the Anglosphere for an alternative combination of countries with which Britain may align herself. The attractions are obvious; the other countries of the Anglosphere – Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States share with Britain a common language, history, culture, legal system and, for scores of millions of their citizens, a common ancestry and close family ties. The first three of those countries – the”Canzuk” countries as they are sometimes called from their initial letters – also share a Head of State with Britain and, down to the 1960s still thought of themselves as British countries. It was when we began to negotiate to join the EEC that the other Canzuk countries began to detach themselves from Britain and to seek new, non-British identities – not because they wanted to but because Britain had cut them adrift. Now that we have decided that “Europe” was a mistake after all, we want them to take us back. But they are not what they were; decades of mass immigration from Asia and Africa have made those countries of the Anglosphere a great deal less Anglo. As for the United States, which would totally dominate any kind of Anglosphere Free Trade Agreement or similar arrangement, it is hurtling even faster towards a non-White majority to be reached sometime in the 2040s, just twenty plus years hence.

Anyway, we are where we are, out of the EU and thankfully, joyfully, in control of our borders once more. But as we know only too well, our Conservative government will use that control to build its cherished “Global Britain”, meaning more – perhaps much more – immigration from Asia and Africa and far less from Europe.

So what should we, as British Racialists, propose for our country’s ideal position on international relations? As I have tried to indicate above, the principle of ever closer union (to say nothing of the ingrained political correctness of its institutions) renders the EU an unsuitable partner for our country, while the Anglosphere, dominated by the United States, is hardly more so. Yet the position of the White race world-wide is now so deeply eroded, so perilous, that our patriotism; – that love of home and country which is core to who we are – demands that we put aside narrow nationalisms and work for all White countries (including Russia, the US and Canzuk) to set themselves, firstly, to protect and advance the racial and cultural identity of White people everywhere, and secondly, to protect the national and cultural identity of each and every White country.

In short, we must save our race, and we must save the many countries which our race has created in all their many and diverse identities. In reality, this is where identitarian politics both in the US and in Europe is headed, particularly among the young – it combines a love of country with a recognition of the common interests and the broad cultural identity of all White folk.

By Frederick Dixon © 2020