‘Europe’ is more than an economic region from which bloated bureaucrats and political nonentities draw salaries and perks. Before the conniving Count Kalergi and his banker friends, and before cabals such as the Bilderberg Group, there was ‘Europe’ as a living, dynamic organism, whose culture, faith, and heroes have been smothered in a quagmire of American junk culture, the debt of bankers, and the opportunity for the sweepings of the world to call themselves ‘Europeans’. ‘Europe’ was hijacked and besmirched by outer enemies and inner traitors. Paradoxically, the Europeans with the soundest instincts are among those who reject and oppose the entity that is today called ‘Europe’, as the recent Brexit poll indicated. However, such has been the disgust at the European project as manifested by secular-humanists, Masons, bankers, bureaucrats and U.S. geopolitical strategists, that the noble Idea of Europe-a-Nation, unfolding over the course of centuries, has been replaced by those who should be promoting it most avidly with the petty-statism that was inaugurated by the French Revolution and subsequent liberal forces of disintegration. Europe has been turned into a travesty of herself, and spurned by those who should be her champions because they are not seeing beyond several hundred years of treachery, corruption and culture-sickness.

The Birth of ‘Europe’

Generally a nation, ethnicity, or people is not conscious of itself until faced with an enemy or that which is markedly different to themselves. The Roman knew who he was vis-à-vis the ‘barbarian’, and likewise the Greek before him. There were no ‘Maori in the land-masses that became New Zealand until there were ‘Pakeha’, the foreigner. Likewise disparate ethnicities can coalesce into a larger ethnic grouping when faced by common dangers.  Nation-states are formed that way, but the modern-day nation-state is no more sacrosanct than pervious states based on dynastic marriage’s and alliance, which could just as easily fall apart. Thus when the petty-state nationalist sees his nation as a finality, and abhors being ‘swamped’ by a united Europe, there is no historic basis for the endurance of his ‘nation-state in its present form, or why Europe should not be reborn if it has the will to do so.

The consciousness of being a ‘European’, and of ‘Europe’ developed vis-à-vis heathens, Mongols, Jews and Moors and defined who one was in relation to the alien. The impetus for Europe came by the recognition of the ‘outer enemy’.

In describing the Battle of Poitiers against the Arabs in AD 732 the Chronicle of Isidore of Spain refers to the Christian armies of Charles Martel as the ‘Europeans’. The empire of Charlemagne (AD 768-814) is named ‘Europe’ by the contemporary chroniclers. In 755 the priest Cathwulf praised Charlemagne as ruling over ‘the glory of the empire of Europe’. In 799 Angilbert, Charlemagne’s son-in-law and the Court poet, described the Emperor as ‘the father of Europe’ – ‘Rex, pater Europae’. The ‘Kingdom of Charles’ was called ‘Europa’ in the Annals of Fuld. Alcuin (735-804), master of the palace school, theologian and Court rhetorician, called this ‘the continent of faith’. During the era of Charlemagne, his Empire was ‘Europe’.

The Franco-English author Hilaire Belloc in Europe and the Faith, described the self-awareness that invigorated the High Culture of the Medieval Age with its distinctly ‘European’ –Gothic – style:

In the next period–the Dark Ages–the Catholic proceeds to see Europe saved against a universal attack of the Mohammedan, the Hun, the Scandinavian: he notes that the fierceness of the attack was such that anything save something divinely instituted would have broken down. The Mohammedan came within three days’ march of Tours, the Mongol was seen from the walls of Tournus on the Sâone: right in France. The Scandinavian savage poured into the mouths of all the rivers of Gaul, and almost overwhelmed the whole island of Britain. There was nothing left of Europe but a central core. Nevertheless Europe survived.

In the refloresence which followed that dark time–in the Middle Ages–the Catholic notes not hypotheses but documents and facts; he sees the Parliaments arising not from some imaginary ‘Teutonic’ moot–a figment of the academies–but from the very real and present great monastic orders, in Spain, in Britain, in Gaul–never outside the old limits of Christendom. He sees the Gothic architecture spring high, spontaneous and autochthonic, first in the territory of Paris and thence spread outwards in a ring to the Scotch Highlands and to the Rhine. He sees the new Universities, a product of the soul of Europe, re-awakened—he sees the marvellous new civilization of the Middle Ages rising as a transformation of the old Roman society, a transformation wholly from within, and motivated by the Faith.

There was a common architectural style, the Gothic, which owed nothing to influences outside Europe, not to the Mongol, or the Arab. The Gothic style, with its peculiar arches and spires was unique: it reflected the Western Gothic world-view of soaring infinity; completely different from that of the Arab mosque or the meandering character of Oriental architecture.  There was a Western science, mathematics and engineering, as Lawrence Brown pointed out decades ago in his now forgotten book, The Might of the West. Likewise, these did not owe their existence to Arab, Hindu, Chinese, or even Greek. There was a specifically Western art, culminating in the perspective of the oil painting of the ‘Old Masters’ and a Gothic music, that gave the same feeling of reaching heavenward. This was not Italian, English, German, French, Spanish…. It was Western, Gothic, European; part of a common High Culture that was not taught by Chinese or Arabs, but grew organically from the soil of Europe.

There was an economy regulated by a social, religious ethos, that upheld the ‘just price’, regarded usury as ‘sin’, and craftsmanship as a divine calling; overseen by guilds. Chivalry was the ideal in dealings in war and peace among honourable warriors and leaders. The last vestige of centuries of chivalry disappeared in the First World War with the practice of airmen burying with honours their downed enemies. The social and economic order based around the guilds was described by American historian Rev. Dr. W. D. P. Bliss:

These guilds of one kind or another, extended all over Germanic Europe and endured in most countries till the time of the Reformation and in a few instances to the nineteenth century. The Middle Ages were a period of customary not of competitive prices, and the idea of permitting agreements to be decided by the ‘higgling of the market’ was an impossibility, because other laws of the market were not left to the free arbitrament of contracting partiers. (W. D. P. Bliss, New Encyclopaedia of Social Reform, New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1908, pp. 544-545).

Bliss stated that this was an era in which craftsmanship dominated over capital ‘and the master worked besides the artisan’. (Ibid., p. 546). There was no ‘class struggle’, as each individual and family functioned as a cell in an organ (guild and estate) and each organ was a necessary part of the social organism as a totality. Bliss described the organic, social nature of Europe, taking as his reference the German city of Nuremberg:

‘No Nuremberger even seriously dreamed of leaving trade or art or manufacture, or indeed any portion of life, to the accident and incident of unrestricted competition. ‘Competition,’ the Nuremberger would have said, ‘is the death of trade, the subverter of freedom, above all, the destroyer of quality.’ Every Nuremberger, like every medieval man, thought of himself not as an independent unit, but as a dependent, although component, part of a larger organism, church or empire or city or guild. This was the very essence of medieval life. (Ibid., p. 842p).

The guild determined what raw materials would be used in a manufacture, how much to buy, the number of apprentices a master might employ, the wages, and the methods of production, and fixed prices. (Ibid.).

The guild did not allow the untrained workman or the mean-spirited trader to cut prices to spoil or steal the market. The guilds measured and weighed and tested all materials, and determined how much each producer could have. … They equally measured or counted, weighed and tested the finished product…. As late as 1456 two men were burned alive at Nuremberg for having sold adulterated wines…. Nuremberg thus saw very well that competition only served the rich and the strong. That collective trading was the hope of the poor and the plain people. …. Money was not to be lent on usury (interest)…. Extortion, false measures, adulation of goods, were abominations in a trading town and punished usually by death. (Ibid.).


What went wrong? It seems that as a general law of history revolutions undertaken in the name of ‘the people’ are a façade for the seizure of power of a moneyed interest against traditional rulers and traditional rules. Even going back to the Roman civilisation, the historian Oswald Spengler in his monumental Decline of The West, noted that Tiberius Gracchus started his revolt in the name of the ‘people’ but with the backing of the wealthy Equites class; Spengler opining that in our own time there is no workers’ revolutionary movement including Communism, that does not serve the interests and direction of ‘money’. Today, read George Soros, National Endowment for Democracy ad infinitum and the ‘colour revolutions’. Each revolt, in the name of freedom’, meant increased freedom for emerging classes of new wealth. The Reformation of Henry VIII destroyed the social order that had been held together by the Church, the monastery, the village priest, and was replaced by oligarchs. Cromwell’s Puritan Revolution paved the way for the Bank of England.

The French Revolution, from which both liberal-capitalism and socialism emerged, destroyed the final vestiges of the guilds, abolished by law, in the name of the ‘free market’. Trade unionism was a reaction to industrialism, where workers tried to squeeze as much remuneration as possible from factory owners, while they in turn were squeezed with usury by the banks, of which Marx and other such socialists said little or nothing. Gone was the social organism that, despite its flaws and tribulations, had been the norm of pre-capitalist Europe, organised around the guild and the village and looked on as the divine order.

Europe Divided

The spiritual and cultural organic unity called ‘Europe’ broke into kingdoms and into princely federations after Charlemagne. The temporal unity was undermined; although the spiritual unity was still maintained by the Papacy. However in the 11th Century the mantel of (Saint) Henry II could still be embroidered with the legend: ‘O blessed Caesar Henry, honour of Europe – may the king who reigns in eternity increase thy empire’. After Henry’s death a funeral chant had the refrain: ‘Europe, now beheaded, weeps’. (Denis de Rougemont, The Idea of Europe, New York: Macmillan Co., 1966, pp. 47-49).

Further schism was caused by Philip the Fair of France during the 14th Century when he challenged both the temporal power of the Holy Empire and the spiritual power of Pope Boniface VIII. This was the first manifestation of the ‘sovereign rights’ which was to eventually result in the emergence of the petty nation-states and the disintegration of the spiritual-cultural-political unity of Europe. The Age of Discovery leading to the colonial empires placed the focus on the Atlantic and to trade rivalry between states. The Reformation undermined the spiritual unity, while the instigators such as Luther and Calvin did not speak of Europe. (Ibid., p. 76). Protestantism sought to replace the Holy Empire and the Papacy with federated states (Ibid., p. 90), ultimately giving rise to what is familiar in our own times as schemes for federated and regional combines in the interests of trade and other economic factors. The proponents of European federation started talking of this as the prelude to world unity during the 17th Century. (Ibid.).

The Reformation brought not only schism to Europe from which Europe has never recovered, but inaugurated the present era of capitalism. The Franco-English author Hilaire Belloc wrote:

When we come to deal with the story of the Reformation in Britain, we shall see how the strong popular resistance to the Reformation nearly overcame that small wealthy class which used the religious excitement of an active minority as an engine to obtain material advantage for themselves. But as a fact in Britain the popular resistance to the Reformation failed. A violent and almost universal persecution directed, in the main by the wealthier classes, against the religion of the English populace and the wealth which endowed it just happened to succeed. In little more than a hundred years the newly enriched had won the battle. (Belloc, Europe and the Faith, London, 2012, chapter 5).

Victory of Money

In England prior to Henry VIII there were no rapacious landlords. The monasteries and convents were based on works of charity and on vows of personal poverty. From the 6th to the 15th centuries this was a society that assured freedom from want and tyranny. The traditional social order was destroyed by Henry VIII with the pillaging and closure of the Religious Houses, which had provided free education to neighbourhood youth, and food and shelter to those in need. In 1536 by Act of Parliament the monasteries and convents were closed and their properties confiscated for the benefit of Henry and his favourites. The social commentator William Cobbett (1763-1835) asserted that with this Act, striking at the very basis of the local social and economic life of the people:

Began the ruin and degradation of the main body of the people of England and Ireland; as it was the first step taken, in legal form, for robbing the people under pretence of reforming their religion; as it was the precedent on which the future plunderers proceeded, until they had completely impoverished the country; as it was the first of that series of deeds of rapine, by which this formerly well-fed and well-clothed people have, in the end, been reduced to rags and to a worse than gaol- allowance of food, I will insert its lying and villainous preamble at full length. Englishmen in general suppose, that there were always poor-laws and paupers in England. They ought to remember, that, for nine hundred years… there were neither. (William Cobbett, The History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland, 1824, p. 166; online at: http://www.wattpad.com/171334-History-of-the-protestant-Reformation-by-William-Cobbett).


Cobbett, a more insightful writer than Karl Marx, knowing intimately the English country, wrote that:

The Reformation despoiled the working classes of their patrimony, it tore from them that which nature had assigned them; it robbed them of that relief for the necessitous which was theirs by right imprescrible, and which had been confirmed to them by the Law of God and the Law of the Land. It brought to them a compulsory, a grudging, an unnatural mode of relief, calculated to make the poor and the rich hate each other, instead of binding them together by the bonds of Christian charity. (Ibid.).

Belloc wrote of the historical process leading to the world economic system now controlled by usury:

Lastly, there is of the major consequences of the Reformation that phenomenon which we have come to call ‘Capitalism,’ and which many, recognizing its universal evil, wrongly regard as the prime obstacle to right settlement of human society and to the solution of our now intolerable modern strains. What is called ‘Capitalism’ arose directly in all its branches from the isolation of the soul. That isolation permitted an unrestricted competition. It gave to superior cunning and even to superior talent an unchecked career. It gave every license to greed. And on the other side it broke down the corporate bonds whereby men maintain themselves in an economic stability. Through it there arose in England first, later throughout the more active Protestant nations, and later still in various degrees throughout the rest of Christendom, a system under which a few possessed the land and the machinery of production, and the many were gradually dispossessed. The many thus dispossessed could only exist upon doles meted out by the possessors, nor was human life a care to these. (Belloc, chapter X).

Liberals, Jacobins and their Masonic sponsors started calling for a federated Europe, but as a prelude for a federated world. On this basis it is assumed by many on the Nationalist Right that they must uphold petty statism and oppose Europe-a-Nation as the means of resisting a ‘new world order’. Jacobin Europe of the type we have today is the Antieurope vis-à-vis Europe, analogous to Antichrist vis-à-vis Christ. The Antichrist is described in the Bible as possessing many of the features of Christ, and as deceiving even the faithful.

Jean Baptiste declared to the French National Assembly on June 13, 1790 that the ‘Rights of Man’, the new law to replace the Ten Commandments, must be adopted by all humanity, and that there must no longer be any sovereign nations. It was the precursor of President Woodrow Wilson’s ‘Fourteen Points’ and President Franklin Roosevelt’s Atlantic Charter, and the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. On 2 April 1792 at the Convention Baptiste called for the creation of ‘La Republique Universelle’.

Europe-a-Nation is not a prelude to a ‘new world order’, it is the only manner by which globalism can be resisted; with the geographic space, the population, and the resources to form a sovereign bloc, where regional and ethnic differences would be encouraged, not obliterated, because Europe-a-Nation would be an organic development, resuming the growth that was stunted and aborted centuries ago; not an artificial construct planned in boardrooms and Lodges as a part of globalism.

The initial post-war moves from limited economic agreements between European nations, to the E.E.C. and finally to the present European Union were part of a gradual process. From these manoeuvrings by plutocrats and members of secret societies, the present counterfeit ‘Europe’ was formed. How can this Antieurope be mistaken for the Europe that is our legacy? Europe is not, and need not be, the creation of oligarchs, bureaucrats, and shadowy Lodge initiates. To reject Europe because she has been made into a diseased whore by culture-pathogens in the service of outer enemies and inner traitors, is to deny what Europe could be again. Is it not surely the duty of those who resist the decay of the modern era to work for the restoration of Europe’s health, rather than to maintain her division with petty-statism?


Kerry Bolton