I've been listening to the David Duke radio show recently, archives of which you can find here (link). I was vaguely aware of David Duke before but had probably only read a couple of his articles I had come across randomly. It was only when he was raised as an issue in the Trump campaign that I visited his website, read more of his stuff and listen to some of his shows. It's definitely worth listening to, although I disagree with him in several important respects, one of which I will outline below.
In a recent show (link), he celebrated the American revolution against Britain as a tremendous triumph for humanity. As I see it, however, the American revolution was the genesis of the catastrophe now engulfing us, the minoritisation of European peoples in their own lands, the Great Replacement or the European Genocide as I call it. In other words, what Duke celebrates was the principal cause of the predicament he now bemoans.
Why do I say this? In the American revolution, what we had was a people breaking away from their ancestral homeland and kinfolk and beginning to define their peoplehood in abstract terms: based on place of birth, an administrative status called citizenship, values that supposedly embody the essence of the people, the co-existence of multiple "religions" within the same state and a formal proclamation that all people are "equal". These are the very ideas that are now destroying our civilisation. It is they that legitimate the mass migration that is turning Europeans into ethnic minorities in the lands they created.
Indeed, one of the complaints levelled against George IV in the American Declaration of Independence was precisely that he was trying to block immigration.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.Even if these ideas have had catastrophic and perhaps fatal consequences for European peoplehood, you could argue that the American Revolution was hijacked by intellectuals - Thomas Jefferson in particular - and used to advance an agenda that ordinary people would not have supported had they understood it. Indeed, you could argue that the intellectuals themselves did not understand the long-run implications of the principles they were articulating. If they did not affirm the importance of Christendom or the "white race", it was because they felt no need to. It was "self-evident". But what was self-evident then is much less so to the rulers of the present day.
The American Revolution began as an affirmation of ancestral peoplehood but ended in its formal repudiation. How so? What irked the revolutionaries at the start was the denial their rights as British people. They saw themselves as Britons entitled to the customary rights of Britons, as established in law and precedent. It was because they were refused those rights, simply because of geographic separation, that the rebellion began. They were not demanding abstract "human rights" or "droits de l'homme", as the French revolutionaries did, but specific customary rights that had been acquired by British people - uniquely, not as an inheritance of all mankind - over the centuries.
But however the American rebellion began, it ended with the triumph of abstraction over reality; of values over ancestry; of imaginary idealism over shared history. The entrancing effect of these ideas on Europe's leaders over the centuries since is what has conjured into being the invasions we are now experiencing. The sex attacks in Cologne; the mass rapes in Rotherham; the jihad attacks in Paris and Brussels - all of these were already implicit in the American Revolution and the complex of ideas it gave rise to about the nature of peoplehood.