-Banquo in Macbeth
Let me begin with George Fitzhugh:
We employ the term Benevolence to express our outward affections, sympathies, tastes, and feelings, but it is inadequate to express our meaning; it is not the opposite of selfishness, and unselfishness would be too negative for our purpose. Philosophy has been so busy with the worst feature of human nature that it has not even found a name for this, its better feature. We must fall back on Christianity, which embraces man’s whole nature, and though not a code of philosophy, it is something better; for it proposes to lead us through the trials and intricacies of life, not by the mere cool calculations of the head, but by the unerring instincts of a pure and regenerate heart. The problem of the Moral World is too vast and complex for the human mind to comprehend; yet the pure heart will, safely and quietly, feel its way through the mazes that confound the head.
–Cannibals All! Or Slaves without Masters by George Fitzhugh
Recently a friend of mine sent me a press release from a group of white nationalists advocating nonviolence. It brought to my mind the quote from Fitzhugh, because the white nationalists have chosen to deal with the trials and intricacies of life in quite a different manner than Fitzhugh and the Europeans of the past. The mind, pure and undefiled from tradition, passion, and poetry is their guide to truth.
Nowhere is this ahistorical, nontraditional, abstract approach to existence more apparent than in the white nationalists’ stance vis-à-vis violence. While conceding a limited right of self-defense in the home, the white nationalists embrace a rigid Quakerism in regards to all other forms of violence: “We must categorically renounce violence,” and, “We must clearly denounce and avoid violence.” Now, if the white nationalists were to say, “We do not think that violent resistance to the liberal leviathan is advisable at this particular moment in history. We are much more concerned with helping white people learn to cherish their past and revere and respect the Savior who once was respected and revered by all Europeans,” then I would have no problem with the white nationalists. I might disagree with them about the strength of the liberal leviathan, but I would not be opposed to their statement of principle. But they do not put any qualifications on their Quakerism. They state that violence is wrong, and anyone who will not unequivocally renounce it is outside the white nationalist fold. Well, then I am unequivocally outside the white nationalist fold, because the white nationalist philosophy, if embraced, drives the dagger of abstract philosophical speculation into the heart of the European people and renders them incapable of any heartfelt response to the complex intricacies of life. And without the heart we are reeds for any and all philosophic ill winds that blow our way. The white nationalists do not just excommunicate all those violent-hearted men of the present, they condemn all our people, particularly the heroes of the past who were violent in defense of the innocent and the good.
Christian morality does not change. If your philosophy condemns all violence other than that violence which is necessary to defend the narrow confines of one’s home, you have condemned Franco’s courageous ouster of the democratically elected, left-leaning government of Spain, the inspired and heroic Klansmen who rode with Forrest, and all the William Tells of Europe who stood against the tyranny of those who attacked innocence.
It’s difficult to believe that the white nationalists truly believe what they say. Do not their hearts burn within them when they hear of the torture murders of their own people? Would not they, if they had the opportunity and the means, kill the perpetrators of such atrocities? The white nationalists remind me very much of the prolifers with whom I used to spend a lot of time. The prolifers talked a lot about defending the unborn and making war on the abortionists, but if anyone actually said that abortion doctors should be shot, they were regarded as moral pariahs. I don’t understand such people, nor do I want to understand them.
The modern European of every type, conservative, nationalist, liberal, and grazer, is unable to understand anything but a syllogism, because a syllogism can be put in a silver rod. Violence, in the modern European’s eyes, is either good or bad; there can be no other conclusion, because no other conclusion can fit in the silver rod of the philosophers. Chaucer’s knight, who killed the infidel in the Holy Land, was depicted as peace-loving and gentle inside. How can such a contradiction exist? It is only a philosophical contradiction; it is not a poetical contradiction, because only a man whose heart burned within him at the plight of the innocent being tortured and murdered in the Holy Land, or one who witnessed the infidel defile all that was pure and noble, would have the passion to fight and kill. All violent acts do not stem from illicit, evil passions. They can, and in the case of the antique Europeans often did stem from good and noble passions – the love of one’s own and the hatred of the devil and all his works. And what could be more devilish than colored savages or Muslim infidels, murdering and raping their way through one white village after another? When white settlers made punitive raids, now condemned by moral theologians, on the Indians who attacked and massacred white settlers, they were practicing Christian charity. “He who strikes one strikes us all.” The noble go on such raids because of that charity of honor, the pragmatic go on such punitive raids because they know that if they do not attack the savages who murder their neighbors the savages will soon be at the door of their own homes. And then it will be too late, but the murdered white settlers will have the satisfaction of having followed the principles of unequivocal nonviolence.
In a movie called Northwest Passage (1940), Rogers of Rogers’ Rangers’ fame, is asked by a British general why he is planning a punitive expedition against the Indians. Rogers says, “For years now the Indians have been coming into our settlements and murdering, torturing, and raping our people. What would you do in our place?” The British general replies, “I’d go get them!” The only people I hate more than the colored barbarians who murder, torture, and rape my people and the liberals who sanction the murder, torture, and rape of my people, are the white nationalists who tell whites that we are not to “go get them” when they murder, torture, and rape our people.
Only men who think they can ignore all the moral principles of their ancestors, which stemmed from a heartfelt, passionate love of the Savior, would arrogantly adopt a new Christianity, based on the esoteric theories in their Gnostic brains. Such men are not fully human, they are mere shadows of men, trying to substitute syllogisms for faith, and egotism for love. Now more than ever there is real fighting to be done. In many parts of Europe and America there is virtually no law. (1) Barbarians of color roam these lawless zones and prey on defenseless white people; defenseless because they have been beaten down by the “You must clearly renounce violence” tirades from the clerics and the white nationalists. Why shouldn’t white men venture out to avenge and protect white women, white children, and all white people from the barbarian hordes? Or should they simply stay cringing in their homes until the barbarians come for them? I detect some awareness of the insanity of doctrinal nonviolence in some of the European right-wing groups, but I see no such awareness in the American nationalists, who seem to be eternally wedded to their abstract faith in some abstract, future state of utopian bliss where giant white brains rule over a kingdom of unequivocally, nonviolent white people. There are some kinists who do not unequivocally denounce violence, because their faith comes from a heart that loves. From those people will come the white resurgence. (2)
The most striking thing about the white nationalists is their hatred of the European peoples’ Christian past. The neopagan regards white men as delusional fools who created a false religion and attempted to ruin the world with its precepts. The tiny minority of white nationalists who attempt to maintain a nominal link to Christianity do so by rejecting the traditional Christianity of the European people and inventing a new Christianity that is more in keeping with the credo of the neopagans. But if the people who took Christ into their hearts were wrong about all the essential doctrines of Christianity and the moral precepts that flowed from those doctrines, such as when to kill and when not to kill, how can we trust anyone else, whether liberals or white nationalists, to be right when they tell us what Christians should believe and how they should behave?
Much of the white nationalists’ fear of white violence stems from their fear of what the liberals will do if a lunatic with a Bible in his hand starts shooting people. They think it will hurt the chances for white nationalists to win elections and “win the people over.” But the question of whether to kill or not to kill must be based on the spirit within. When the heart demands that we fight, we cannot ignore our duty for fear we might be lumped with the Timothy McVeighs and the Anders Behring Breiviks of the world. (3)
There are many different interpretations of Christ’s words about violence: “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the Kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” I always took those words to mean that we must be passionate about all things pertaining to our faith, passionate in defense of our God and our people. And since we are not disembodied spirits but are in fact human bodies animated by the spirit, we cannot just gnostically condemn evil in our minds, we must also fight evil when it becomes embodied in human beings. Most of us will quite probably never actually fight liberals or the barbarians of color to the death, but if we don’t believe that such a fight is just, honorable, and Christian, we will have denounced God in our hearts and we will lose all those internal battles against principalities and powers. And, which is just as disastrous, we will have created a climate of support for the liberals and a climate of condemnation for heroes of the faith, such as Paul Hill, the first man who shot and killed an abortionist. Had every Christian supported Paul Hill at the time of that shooting, there would have been more dead abortionists and quite possibly a European counter-revolution against the forces of Babylon. But so-called prolifers rushed to condemn Paul Hill for taking seriously the injunction of Christ: “Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”
The tortured aborted babies and the tortured murdered white people who are being aborted outside the womb by the liberal hierarchies, through their colored henchmen, are “the least of these my brethren,” who should be fought for in the name of Him who calls on us, the Christ-bearing people, to fight for that charity of honor which our European ancestors fought for. If we are to become mere desiccated death heads, talking about nonviolence, Viking sperm banks, and bloodless, soulless, white utopias, we are as nothing. Almighty God, forbid it! The European is not meant for such a destiny. He is Hamlet, he is Tell, he is von Stauffenberg, loving and hating with all his heart and fighting and killing when his heart of fire calls on him to do so.
The mind-forged, foreshortened vision of existence, which leaves out the better part of man, his heart, is the vision of the white nationalist and the liberal, but it is not the vision of the antique European. The old vision of a passionate, Christian people fighting to preserve their faith and their race in the midst of a hostile world is the vision of the European who has not severed his ties to the past. I don’t see any beauty or romance in the competing visions of utopia set forth by the liberals and the white nationalists. Nor do I see the Christ of Europe in those dystopian worlds. As the shadows of utopia lengthen, please Lord, with us abide. +
(1) In many American cities there are all-negro zones, where whites dare not go. There is Sharia law in many sections of London where whites are subject to the less than tenders mercies of Muslims.
Why shouldn’t whites form colored-free zones in their cities and in their nations? Apartheid, rigidly enforced, would be a great blessing. Let the colored live with colored and govern themselves and let the whites live with whites and govern themselves.
(2) There are huge tactical problems connected with the use of violence against the liberal leviathan. No white man wants to see white youths launching suicidal assaults on an enemy that will kill them without mercy. But there should be no moral imperative against violence: quite the opposite should be the case. If white men with hearts of fire and the rational capabilities to back up their passion decide to strike the leviathan they should be commended, not condemned.
(3) In Great Expectations, Dickens observes that we always seem most afraid of the ill opinion of people we profess to despise. The liberals are going to lump all white people who want to remain white in the same basket. If they can’t find a true accusation, then they will make up a false one. Living one’s life trying to appease the liberals is not only immoral, it is also an impossibility. Instead of constantly assuring the liberals that whites will remain nonviolent no matter what is done to them by the liberals and barbarians of color, why not let the liberals and the barbarians of color start worrying about what those angry white people might do if the violence against their people and the blasphemous attacks on their God do not cease?