I recently read a speech, given in 1995 at an American Renaissance Conference, in which the speaker disagreed strongly with those pro-white advocates who recommended that white people form separate states within the state in order to ensure the survival of a distinct white, European culture. The speaker said that this was tantamount to surrender. There were still, he maintained, enough white votes to bring about a white cultural renewal without adopting what the speaker claimed were unrealistic and drastic measures.
My answer then, and even more so now, would be that looking at a situation realistically and deciding that drastic, non-democratic measures are necessary is not the same thing as surrendering. Was Shane surrendering when he walked into Grafton’s saloon to face Stark Wilson?
Shane stopped about three quarters of the way forward, about five yards from Wilson. He cocked his head for one quick sidewise glance again at the balcony and then he was looking only at Wilson. He did not like the setup. Wilson had the front wall and he was left in the open of the room. He understood the fact, assessed it, accepted it.
The first step, before heroic action can be taken to rid the world of rotters like Stark Wilson and Fletcher, is a realistic appraisal of who the enemy is and one’s position vis-à-vis
the enemy. I do not think the American Renaissance Conference speaker had a realistic idea of who the enemy was or a realistic assessment of the white man’s position in relation to his enemy. How can one take a realistic stance against the enemy if he has only nebulous notions as to his enemy’s identity?
Who is the enemy? The primary enemy is the anti-white white. The reason for the American Renaissance speaker’s inability to see that drastic measures were necessary in 1995 (and imperative in 2008) is because he counted too many white-hating whites and their dupes, the grazers, (see “The Underground Men
”) as candidates for conversion. The white-hating white and the grazers are not, except for an occasional miracle of grace, going to be converted. The white-hating white has gone too far down the slippery slope, and the white grazer has spent too many years eating from the trough of oblivion to ever come back. The grazers are like the Israelites who could not pass muster. A whole generation had to die out before the tribe could enter the Promised Land.
The American Renaissance speaker overestimates the convertibility of the white-hating rationalists because he is a rationalist himself. If he had made a realistic assessment of the white man’s plight he would have seen that the white man is facing extinction because he has abandoned his heritage, the heroic, bardic heritage, for a new, magic, talismanic, rationalistic system. This is why the American Renaissance speaker cannot possibly see beyond democratic politics. So long as there are democratic parlor games, he thinks he can out-maneuver and out-wizard the white-hating rationalists. But tis not so. The white man must turn away from the game of dueling wizards and reclaim his heroic heritage. Evil wizards are not defeated by good wizards; they are defeated by the Hero who is pure of heart. The good American Renaissance rationalist and the white-hating rationalist both suffer from a surfeit of rationalism. They are impious. Our ancestors
knew that “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.”
The failure of the pro-life movement is very similar to the failure of the white identity movement (to the extent that you can even call it a movement), so it is helpful to look at the pro-life movement. In 1973, at least 60% of Americans, a majority, held the opinion that abortion should not be legal. But there was not a conviction among even 1% of the 60% that those people who wanted to legalize abortion were an enemy. How is it possible to believe that those who favor infanticide are within the ken of white civilization? I don’t know, but the “pro-lifers” did dialogue with the baby killers. They dialogued and they dialogued. And while they were dialoguing, the baby killers built up a moral consensus (or would it be called an immoral consensus?) that abortion was right and proper. And the greatest supporters of rational dialogue with baby killers were the “Christian” clergy.
What would have happened if pro-lifers had refused the democratic approach, if they had refused to dialogue but instead told the abortionist in the strength of their majority, “You shall not commit such atrocities because if you do we will kill you”? I think abortion would still be illegal.
The fight for white civilization has gone the same way as the anti-abortion movement. It has ended in defeat because whites preferred to dialogue rather than fight with an enemy who was beyond the ken of civilization. If a white man can countenance (not just countenance but applaud) the type of murder and mayhem perpetrated on whites by blacks (see Paul Shechan’s 1995 article in the Sydney Morning Herald
) for the past fifty years, is he really someone who can be converted by rational discourse? And once again, as was the case in the pro-life movement, it was the clergy who supported the violence of the murderers while counseling the victims and defenders to dialogue and forgive.
The ‘get out the vote and write letters’ white men spend their lifetimes telling white people that they must act. But when small groups of whites try to act, by separating from the anti-white government and forming their own schools, militias, and local governments, the letter-writing advocates condemn them and accuse them of giving up.
I would submit that what the wise speaker for the American Renaissance could not discover, the simple fools who have to live in the brave new world of the technocrats, barbarians, and amazons already know: The great American experiment in democracy is over. It was ill-conceived and has produced evil fruits. But the white race is not finished so long as there are white men left who are connected to the heroic tradition of Europe rather than the democratic tradition.
In the market where I shop there is a young man in his early twenties, who works as a bagger, named Roland. After dealing with him on a ‘thank you for bagging’ basis for a couple months, I branched out. “You have a heroic name,” I said.
Of course he was puzzled at first. He thought I was making fun of him, but then I took the time to tell him the story of Roland, with which he was completely unfamiliar. The young man did not, upon hearing the story, buy a sword and swear to retake the Holy Land, but his face actually showed some animation as the story reached its conclusion. Now whenever I see the young bagger I say, “He took his stand and held it, never yielding unto death!” He always smiles. Why shouldn’t he? I’m talking about his namesake.
I don’t for one moment think I turned that young man’s life around by telling him the story of Roland. It takes an entire lifetime of stories about Roland and other white heroes to turn a young man away from modernity and toward the light of Europe. And that is the point. Why hasn’t that young man been told the story of Roland, of William Tell, of Forrest, of Arthur, etc.? I’m sure he knows who the black heroes are. Our schools make sure of that. And the young black men know who the black heroes are. So at least the modern day Roland has some heroes. But does he have a heritage? If he is only permitted heroes from another race, can the young white man lay claim to any heritage? No, he cannot. He has been branded with the mark of Cain and driven into the hinterlands of our modern civilization.
And what about the young white man’s faith? Thomas Hughes made the observation that our heroes are intimately connected to our faith. The older heroes of Europe pointed to Him. To whom do the black heroes lead us? To the other ‘him’ with the pointy tail.
If the shadows of black hero worship are not altered, there will be, with the exception of a few miracles of grace, no white Christian men. And the shadows will not be altered by letter-writing campaigns which implore the powers that be to allow white men to have a white heritage. Nor will the shadows be altered by attempting to convert the unconvertible, the white academics and the grazers. The shadows will only be altered by a tiny white minority of men, still spiritually connected to a civilization of white, Christian heroes. The counsel of the practical men who told us to plead for representation and to back Patrick Buchanan-type candidates was wrong. If we had ignored their advice thirty years ago and started the counterrevolution without their assent we would be in a much better position today than we are currently. Democratic politics is the politics of losing slow. But in a war you must, if your enemy is implacable, fight to win.
The practical men, the sons of Martha, always say that a counterrevolution is not realistic. “There is no support for it.” A counterrevolution, at its beginning, always seems unrealistic. But is it realistic to hope that the demonization of the white man and the systematic eradication of his heritage can be halted by supporting a pro-white candidate? (1)
Of course not.
Let’s accept reality and start from there. Government, school, church, Wall Street, and the community at large are all against the white man. Never has one race and one sex been as ostracized by the entire world as the white male is. The white man can either continue listening to delusional friends who tell him to write letters and vote white, or he can start doing what white counterrevolutionaries do. They bind themselves to their fellow white men with hoops of steel, invoke the God who dwells in depths which the heathen and the technocrat cannot understand, and do whatever it takes to undermine every organ of the revolutionary government in power.
When Alexander Smollet tells the pirates that wherever he flies the English flag, that spot of land is England, he is articulating the heartfelt faith of all European men. Wherever European values are fought for and cherished, there lies Europe. If white men are banished to the hinterlands of civilization, the hinterlands become civilization. What we don’t want to do is to continue to give aid and comfort to a technocratic-barbarian civilization that has renounced antique Europe. Let the white technocrats and the barbarians of color try to sustain a civilization without our help. They’ll self-destruct soon enough. The white man who is in union with antique Europe never surrenders; he takes his stand, never yielding, even unto death. +________________________________________________________
(1) The absurdity of the advice, “vote white,” became self-evident in the recent Presidential primaries in which there were no pro-white candidates.
Labels: barbarians, grazers, Roland, technocrats, white Christian men and women