The premise of today’s liberal democracy is that decision-making is a collection of individuals, rather than individuals forming a collective, and this distinction is important. In the first instance, individuals voting in line with their personal considerations produces a very different outcome to individuals voting in consideration of the overall well-being of the community to which they belong.
Humans are all inherently social beings. Yes, we are each an individual, but equally we are integral to the greater whole of a community, to the extent where we quickly develop detrimental mental, emotional, and physical effects if we are alone for too long. We are meant to co-exist with others. Our modern societies value independence – ‘independent thought’, ‘independent women’ – yet the negative result of this overemphasis is atomisation and disconnection from both ourselves and others, where we increasingly feel lonely and are, in fact, alone.
Can there be true democracy when one votes only according to their own wants and needs? No; though we are individual people, we are inextricably linked through family and ancestry, and exist in relationship to a community based upon this. A nation’s people hold an intrinsic legitimacy that no government or political system can ever deny or erase. A nation’s survival – and by extension, individual survival – relies upon the will of the whole.
Georges Sorel summed it up as such: “In our modern democracies, almost everyone feels free from the past, is without a deep love of the home, and thinks but little of future generations; deluded by the mirage of speculative riches which would come from the cleverness of their minds rather than from a serious participation in material production, they think only of royally enjoying windfalls. Their true bailiwick is the big city where men pass like shadows; political committees have taken the place of the old ‘social authorities’ destroyed by revolutions, whose descendants have abandoned a country forgetful of its past, and who have been replaced by people living in the new fashion.”[i]
The source of government’s legitimacy lies with the body of principles on which the deep-seated consensus of the nation is based. Founded upon history, reflected in its deeds and successes, and resting on a given conception of man, of society and politics, this deep-seated consensus carries an obligation to build the future history of the nation according to the inspiration of its spirit. It is this implicit philosophy, this living presence that each member of a nation experiences through his own family milieu, circle of acquaintances, and culture, that constitutes the principle of national concord, which subsists in each person in a more profound and intimate way than his own explicit opinions; this concord is born out of the national spirit, out of the sense of belonging to a given culture, out of the love for one’s country. The legitimacy of political regimes and policies is this, based on a form of culture and a cultural mission. Each national culture has a principle of legitimacy of its own, a specific mission it has entrusted to its own leaders in accordance with its own history and personality.[ii]
We are facing a crisis of illegitimacy in our ‘democratic’ societies. The consequences of decades of unnatural immigration – accelerated since Tony Blair’s days in office – have reached the point where our major cities and towns no longer reflect the nations of the English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish peoples, as we are outnumbered now by non-Europeans. The more immigration our countries accept, the less our natural nations are able to assert their will, as every political party panders to the ‘minority vote’ and competes amongst themselves for the status of best virtue-signaller. Establishment politics, ever the politically correct, cater to the demands and sensibilities of these non-indigenous populations rather than the needs and desires of its indigenous people. The consequence is impossible to deny – we are being demographically replaced in our homelands.
The establishment mainstream news media and academia call the destruction of our native cultures, incited by government policy alone, ‘progress’, and anyone who speaks to the contrary is labeled some manner of hatred. Silently, then quietly, we endured the slow decay of our cultures, as cities became monoliths to the progressive replacement of the people who once lived there, raised their families there, forged communities there.
Then came the Brexit referendum, where the alienation between the people and their government resulted in the Leave result and a higher voter turnout than in any general election. We have been repeatedly and consistently marginalised by our supposed representatives, and took what seemed to be our final chance to resist our cultural demise. Affluent Eurosceptics and the working classes, both young and old, voted to leave at least one layer of undemocratic bureaucracy that demands we keep our borders open, regardless of the consequences.[iii]
The Establishment is confused. They don’t understand why the indigenous people of our fair isles are protesting our own replacement. Strangely, they fail to see why we are furious about the imported crime rate leading us to become the centre of crime in the western world, and of the acid attacks, machete attacks, rapes, grooming gangs of children, female genital mutilation, mosques replacing churches, the reintroduction of third world diseases, and so on.
Our resistance was foreseen by many, including Alain de Benoist: “One should not underestimate the importance of the genuine phenomenon of national and folk consciousness, by means of which the collective representations of a desirable sociopolitical order are linked to a shared vision, comprised of a feeling of belonging that presents each person with imperatives transcending particular rivalries and tensions.”[iv]
[i] Volume 2: Hermeneutics and the Sciences; Georges Sorel; 1990; pages 85-86
[ii] Le liberalisme, Espoir ou peril; Raymond Polin and Claude Polin; 1984; pages 106-108
[iii] National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy; Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin; 2018; page 23
[iv] The Problem of Democracy; Alain de Benoist; 2011; page 41