Will white man’s sword be reforged?

Excerpted from a longer
book-review by Michael O’Meara of
Histoire et tradition des européennes (2002)
by Dominique Venner:




In Venner’s view, the European of history is best seen as a warrior bearing a sword, symbol of his will. The virtù of this warrior is affirmed every time he imposes his cosmos (order) upon a world whose only order is that which he himself gives it. History, thus, is no immobilizing determinism, but a theater of the will, upon whose stage the great men of our people exert themselves. Both as intellectual discipline and individual act of will, it seems hardly coincidental that history is Europe’s preeminent art form.

In Defense of Who We Are

Like history, life has no beginning or end, being a process of struggle, an overcoming of obstacles, a combat, in which the actor’s will is pivotal. While it inexorably ends in death and destruction, from its challenges all our greatness flows. The Hellenes entered history by refusing to be slaves. Bearing their sword against an Asiatic foe, they won the right to be who they were. If a single theme animates Venner’s treatment of Europe’s history and tradition, it is that Europeans surmounted the endless challenges to their existence only because they faced them with sword in hand—forthrightly, with the knowledge that this was not just part of the human condition, but the way to prove that they were worthy of their fate. Thus, as classical Greece rose in struggle against the Persians, the Romans against the Carthaginians, medieval and early modern Europe against Arabic, then Turkish, Islam, we too today have to stand on our borders, with sword in hand, to earn the right to be ourselves.

Europeans, Venner concludes, must look to their history and tradition—especially to the honor, heroism, and heritage Homer immortalized—to rediscover themselves. Otherwise, all that seeks the suppression of their spirit and the extinction of their blood will sweep them aside. The question thus looms: In the ethnocidal clash between the reigning nihilism and the white men of the West, who will prevail? From Venner’s extraordinary book, in which the historian turns from the drama of the event to the scene of our longue durée, we are led to believe that this question will be answered in our favor only if we remain true to who we are, to what our forefathers have made of us, and to what Francis Parker Yockey, in the bleak years following the Second World War, called the primacy of the spirit.


__________________

First published in The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 4, no. 2, Summer 2004.

Call to Arms

Below—excerpts of pages 55-59 of Harold Covington’s The Brigade: a possible future in America once the shit hits the fan in Europe and a sufficient mass of revolutionary whites reaches its explosive proportions. The strategy would be to demonstrate that the United States has no longer a credible monopoly of violence. The tactics are a kind of hybrid anatomy combining the IRA and the Cosa Nostra, two subversive movements of the 20th century. No ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs:

“Overthrow the United States government with a thousand men?” demanded Washburn in skeptical amazement. “Bullshit!”

“I didn’t say overthrow the United States government,” Morehouse corrected him. “I said effectively terminate federal control and authority in three large Northwestern states, which is not the same thing.”

“How?” asked Ekstrom.

“By hitting the enemy hard and often, in teams or crews of two to five or six people max. Let’s assume an average of five Volunteers per squad or crew. Our thousand effectives will make up two hundred such crews. Imagine each of those crews striking the enemy on an average of once per day, all across the Northwest. Let’s assume an average of a single dead enemy of one kind or another per attack. That’s 100 people per day being killed in one three-state area.”

“That’s if we can find the kind of political soldiers necessary for that kind of warfare,” Hatfield reminded them. “The guys with the cool head and the iron nerve and the ice water in their veins.”

“You got it,” agreed Morehouse with a nod. “But I cannot turn mere white males into white men once again, men that our ancestors would have recognized. We can win this, comrades,” concluded Morehouse decisively. “We can beat the God Almighty United States of America, kick their stinking rotten asses right out of here, and take this land for ourselves and our children. But only if we have the stomach for it.”

There was a long moment of silence.

“Let’s get started, then,” said Hatfield.

“Right,” said Morehouse, filling his pipe again.

“In this room you’ve already got your first Trouble Trio. You’d be amazed how much hell three men can raise in a society this complex, this racially volatile and unstable. Each company needs to be free floating, capable of conducting operations indefinitely on its own, even if it is totally cut off from the rest of the movement. Each company will be part of a larger unit called a brigade. The brigade will be the main operational combat unit of the Northwest Volunteer Army, responsible for taking on ZOG within a roughly defined operational area.”

Mars and Hephaestus

Le Serment des Horaces

or Oath of the Horatii (1784)

painter: Jacques-Louis David











Excerpts from “Mars & Hephaestus: The Return of History” by Guillaume Faye:

The twenty-first century will be a century of iron and storms. It will not resemble those harmonious futures predicted up to the 1970s. It will not be the global village prophesied by Marshall MacLuhan in 1966, or Bill Gates’ planetary network, or Francis Fukuyama’s end of history: a liberal global civilization directed by a universal state.

The Third Age of European Civilization commences, in a tragic acceleration of the historical process, with the Treaty of Versailles and end of the civil war of 1914-18: the catastrophic twentieth century. Four generations were enough to undo the labor of more than forty. Europe fell victim to its own tragic Prometheanism, its own opening to the world and universalism, oblivious of all ethnic solidarity.

The Fourth Age of European civilization begins today. It will be the Age of rebirth or perdition. The twenty-first century will be for this civilization, the fateful century, the century of life or death.

Let us cultivate the pessimistic optimism of Nietzsche. “There is no more order to conserve; it is necessary to create a new one.” Will the beginning of the twenty-first century be difficult? Are all the indicators in the red? So much the better. They predicted the end of history after the collapse of the USSR? We wish to speed its return: thunderous, bellicose, and archaic. Islam resumes its wars of conquest. China and India wish to become superpowers. And so forth. The twenty-first century will be placed under the double sign of Mars, the god of war, and of Hephaestus, the god who forges swords, the master of technology and the chthonic fires. This century will be that of the metamorphic rebirth of Europe, like the Phoenix, or of its disappearance as a historical civilization and its transformation into a cosmopolitan and sterile Luna Park.

The beginning of twenty-first century will be the despairing midnight of the world of which Hölderlin spoke. But it is always darkest before the dawn. Let us prepare our children for war. Let us educate our youth, be it only a minority, as a new aristocracy.

Today we need more than morality. We need hypermorality, the Nietzschean ethics of difficult times. When one defends one’s people, i.e., one’s own children, one defends the essential. Then one follows the rule of Agamemnon and Leonidas but also of Charles Martel: what prevails is the law of the sword, whose bronze or steel reflects the glare of the sun.

Earl Turner vs. Jared Taylor

I’ve spent some days
listening to the whole
audio version of
The Turner Diaries
by Andrew Macdonald
(real name: William Pierce).

In chapter 6 Pierce wrote:


But there is no way we can destroy the System without hurting many thousands of innocent people—no way. It is a cancer too deeply rooted in our flesh. And if we don’t destroy the System before it destroys us—if we don’t cut this cancer out of our living flesh—our whole race will die.

We have gone over this before, and we are all completely convinced that what we did is justified, but it is still very hard to see our own people suffering so intensely because of our acts. It is because Americans have for so many years been unwilling to make unpleasant decisions that we are forced to make decisions now which are stern indeed.

And is that not a key to the whole problem? The corruption of our people by the Jewish-liberal-democratic-equalitarian plague which afflicts us is more clearly manifested in our soft-mindedness, our unwillingness to recognize the harder realities of life, than in anything else.

Liberalism is an essentially feminine, submissive worldview. Perhaps a better adjective than feminine is infantile. It is the worldview of men who do not have the moral toughness, the spiritual strength to stand up and do single combat with life, who cannot adjust to the reality that the world is not a huge, pink-and-blue, padded nursery in which the lions lie down with the lambs and everyone lives happily ever after.

Nor should spiritually healthy men of our race even want the world to be that way, if it could be so. That is an alien, essentially Oriental approach to life, the worldview of slaves rather than of free men of the West. But it has permeated our whole society. Even those who do not consciously accept the liberal doctrines have been corrupted by them.

Decade after decade the race problem in America has become worse. But the majority of those who wanted a solution, who wanted to preserve a White America, were never able to screw up the courage to look the obvious solutions in the face. All the liberals and the Jews had to do was begin screeching about “inhumanity” or “injustice” or “genocide,” and most of our people who had been beating around the edges of a solution took to their heels like frightened rabbits. Because there was never a way to solve the race problem which would be “fair for everybody”—or which everyone concerned could be politely persuaded into accepting without any fuss or unpleasantness—, they kept trying to evade it, hoping that it would go away by itself. And the same has been true of the Jewish problem and the immigration problem and the overpopulation problem and the eugenics problem and a thousand related problems.

Yes, the inability to face reality and make difficult decisions: that is the salient symptom of the liberal disease. Always trying to avoid a minor unpleasantness now, so that a major unpleasantness becomes unavoidable later, always evading any responsibility to the future—that is the way the liberal mind works.

* * *
I listened the above quotation from William Pierce himself reading his chapter, track 17 of the audio version of his book. Let me now pass the microphone to Jared Taylor, the headperson of American Renaissance:



Taylor is a gentleman with silver tongue and I love his style. But as stated elsewhere in this blog, there is a movie we recommend, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

It’s about the idea that civilization depends on men who use violence, but that civilization, once it is founded and secure and no longer needs violent men, ignores and derides the very men without whom it wouldn’t exist. The city slicker (James Stewart) wasn’t up to the job; the town had to be saved by the violent, marginal brute (John Wayne). Whenever you find such men, some counter-jihadists advice us, hold on to them. “You cannot afford to be picky when it comes to choosing here. Only princesses in fairy tales can afford that.”

Back to the real world, a civilized city-dweller like Taylor can mantain an already established, non self-treasonous civilization. But the characters of Pierce’s novel are the brutes who, in face of treason, make civilization possible in the first place.