Another Deluded Condemnation of Violence

running

Analyzing the Effectiveness of Politically Motivated Mass Murder in the US, by Patrick Le Brun at Counter-Currents, is a broad condemnation of White violence disguised as pro-White analysis. Le Brun makes his foregone conclusion plain from the start:

I see no use for violence in our movement. I am not a pacifist, nor do I believe that the current ruling class does not deserve it. But a brief comparison of the use of violence for political purposes throughout the last 100 years should make it clear why this is not the right choice for us, and such acts and their perpetrators should be expressly condemned. Since potential mass killers are probably not swayed by moral considerations, my argument against such violence is purely pragmatic.

Unlike many other pro-Whites who babble about “moral considerations” without giving much consideration to the meaning of such terms, Le Brun boldly announces that he will simply not even consider White political violence in such terms. Instead he chooses to see the “potential mass killers” he addresses as either amoral or immoral, i.e., that what drives them has nothing to do with morality, at least not of any sort he regards as valid.

I could go on at length here about morality and its importance, but I already have. Those who are interested in what I think morality has to do with White identity can consult Stupid/Crazy/Evil, Pathologization and Demonization, Morals, Morality and Moralizing, Universalism and Particularism, and Morality and Identity.

It will suffice here to note that morality, in the most general terms, is nothing more than a definition of good and bad, and at root it springs from a concern for some set of people. Any distortion in the distinction between this set of people and another, between us and them, creates moral confusion. Self-professed pro-Whites taking special pains to specifically condemn interracial violence perpetrated by fellow Whites is an especially perverse consequence of such confusion.

The result of Le Brun’s own failure to consider morality is clearest in the most recent example he examines, the case of Dylann Roof. Le Brun takes Roof’s verbal justification, “You rape our women and you’re taking over our country”, quite literally. And because he has settled on a purely pragmatic view, he is confused about its meaning:

These are probably Blacks who are the least linked with whatever grievance about crime Roof has with the Black community. They were rather exemplary members of their community who exhibit a self-discipline that surpasses that of so many Hollywood Nazis and keyboard warriors. We must remember that while The Bell Curve proves our racial incompatibility as a whole, the curves also overlap.

does anyone really believe that there will be fewer Black-on-White rapes because the potential perpetrators would not want to provoke another massacre in a Black Church? Also, Counter-Currents readers are too smart to believe his premise that “Blacks are taking over.”

An honest attempt to understand Roof’s thinking would include reading his purported manifesto. Roof’s insightfullness and race-based sense of moral outrage is clear throughout. In the last section, labelled “An Explanation”, Roof offers a rationale for his choice of target based on both symbolism and pragmatism.

Based on the manifesto it appears Roof sees race in somewhat coarse black versus White terms. Like many racialists, including even those who write at Counter-Currents, Roof seems not to fully appreciate the nature and influence of the jews. However, the manifesto does mention the “jewish agitation of the black race”, notes the bias and poisonous influence of the (thoroughly jewed) anti-White media, recognizes differences in race consciousness, and draws distinctions between various non-White races. In short, the manifesto indicates that Roof’s understanding runs far deeper than “blacks are taking over”. Thus Le Brun’s attempt to paint Roof as stupid is itself stupid.

Le Brun’s finding of fault with Roof or any of the other men whose cases he examines is literally beside the point. His main point is to condemn and thus disassociate himself from them. Early on he asserts his belief that such violence has been used “to hurt our cause through guilt by association”. At the end he reiterates and elaborates on this belief:

To conclude, I believe that White Nationalism has been harmed rather than helped by killers like Roof, Page, Breivik, Miller, etc. Indeed, some of their acts have been so catastrophically counter-productive, one must question whether they were really trying to advance political aims at all, as opposed to simply indulging in nihilistic destruction. (In which case, perhaps they should have begun by killing themselves.) Thus such shooters and shootings must be condemned in the strongest language possible. I hope that anyone reading this who is actually contemplating such a killing spree will think this through carefully, then either change his mind — or find some other website to read.

Le Brun deludes himself and is encouraging his readers do so as well. He reckons he can simply verbally disown those Whites he deems unworthy – whether less knowledgable, disciplined, or more militant than himself – and that this will somehow advance the broader White interests he so unselfconsciously conflates with and constrains to his personal beliefs.

I believe genocide is the larger catastrophy Whites face, and that it grinds on despite the relatively minor acts of retaliatory violence and condemnations Le Brun and others are so determined to deliver, not because of them. The stated aims of Roof and Breivik, the two cases with which I am most familiar, were two-fold: to call attention to the plight of their people and to inspire further action. I think they did advance these aims. I think if anything deserves be called out as counter-productive (not to mention ineffective) it is the condemnations of actors by conceited thinkers. Like Fjordman, Le Brun imagines that words can protect him from the consequences of his ideas.

14 thoughts on “Another Deluded Condemnation of Violence”

  1. “I believe genocide is the larger catastrophy Whites face, and that it grinds on despite the relatively minor acts of retaliatory violence and condemnations Le Brun and others are so determined to deliver, not because of them.”

    I’m sure Le Brun believes that too. As do I. That belief and the belief that Roof type violence (which you mistakenly call retaliatory – which would be actually attacking attackers/violent criminals rather than church goers) is not productive aren’t mutually exclusive.

    Most of us Whites happen to believe that this unfocused (despite your contention that it was a ‘target’) violence actually makes things worse for Whites and is a propaganda victory for the other side.

    But I acknowledge Le Brun’s analysis is simplistic. It’s too hard to discern whether this act of Roof’s woke anybody up or not. The manifesto’s focus on Black criminality and his awakening brings a whole new, angle that previous spree killings have not brought to the issue.

    But, even if it did, pragmatics is not morality. Roof, I acknowledge, could have had a positive effect despite doing the wrong thing.

  2. Should there be a uprising against our hostile elite if parties like marie le pen dont get into power and how should we go about reclaiming our power again from jews.Another thing i want to ask is do you think befriending hindus and armenians on waging war on jews to exterminate them is a wise idea based on common interests ?

  3. I thought that particular article was flawed too. Even if we condemn violence in principle, the fact it is, later down the road it is associated with rewards for political movements time and again.

    It’s reaping rewards right now for the ‘black movement’ where due to the taboo about race, black violence against Whites (which is highly ‘unfocused’) cannot be explained in terms of black degeneracy only in terms of a White-inflicted injustice on blacks. What that means is Whites have to compensate and extend more unearned advantages to blacks. They are essentially paying a redistributive tax to be victims of black crime.

  4. Of course violence works. In fact, it might be the only thing that works. Ramsey Paul had a great clip on this issue right after the church shooting, wherein he mentioned the terrorism involved in the Jews gaining their homeland in Israel.
    On the other hand, not all violence is productive, and this should be obvious. The protests against the civil rights movement stopped immediately after the church bombing that killed the little black girls. Nobody wants to be associated with something like that.
    We all have our own specific tolerance level (or objections) to violence. There is no doubt that violence is sometimes justified.
    Breivik was not one of us, from what I understand. He was a Zionist and a nutcase.
    You see the result of Roof’s violence. Serious moves toward gun control. The banning of the confederate flag. Talk of removal of statues of our national heroes. Insanity.
    Lone wolf violence would have to be much more prevalent to have any effect.
    Muslims have no reservations about violence, and violence works for them because it scares the crap out of people.
    Black violence works as well. Of course, the Jews run the black violence like a well oiled machine. The blacks don’t seem to have any brains at all.
    The threat of violence an be just as effective as violence itself, but the threat has to be seen as real.
    Mexicans fill the streets of Los Angeles with hundreds of thousands of people, and for the most part the filthy beaners get whatever they want.
    White people stay home and watch their country turn to shit without lifting a finger to stop it.
    I wish I had the answers.

  5. @ CRUSHISREALNOW —

    “befriending hindus and armenians”

    Mostly no from what I’ve seen in the industrial sector.

    It’s why some of us rarely even use the word WHITE anymore; too many caucasians are light enough but still utterly loath all things European man is, was, and can ever be.

    The goal must be the restoration of Europa, first and last. Scuffles amongst Europeans are a disaster, especially the top-down class warfare American Plutocrats insist on waging. This must stop.

    Census figures for “caucasian white” have been misleading (and lulling folks like the morons at VDARE) for too long. Lots of North African, Turkic and Middle Easterners are technically white, counted as such for census purposes, and hate real Euros with a passion.

    There’s less of us than you think.

  6. I posted this comment over at Counter Currents.

    Analyzing the Effectiveness of Politically Motivated Mass Murder in the US

    [http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/07/analyzing-the-effectiveness-of-politically-motivated-mass-murder-in-the-us/]

    The problem I have with this article by Patrick Le Brun (PLB) is that it takes a “throw them all under the bus” position against Whites who have had a gut-full and have decided to lash out violently against the jew system that is intent on genociding us through a slow multigenerational process of murderous attrition, among many other methods.

    The article spends most of its words on analyzing, contrasting and comparing in detail several recent violent White “actions” to “professional actions”, leading to the conclusion that the amateurs are “counterproductive” and “harm our cause”.

    This conclusion is simplistic and wrong because it compares organized professional violence to amateur “lone nut” violence as if they have something in common and driven by the same motivations.

    When highly organized jew “professionals” carried out the false flag event known as 9/11, they “succeeded” by having at least a million plus, and counting, murdered as a consequence and their political Jew World Order (JWO) agenda imposed on us to this day. They also succeeded in their primary goal of unleashing the War of Terror on us and the rest of the world for the purpose of eventually creating a JWO tyranny.

    When Breivik killed 77 of the youthful offspring of White traitors ,why is it labelled by PLB as “counterproductive” and “harmful to our cause”? Is it because Norway didn’t immediately change its immigration policy and start deporting all the parasites, jews first and foremost?

    If that had more or less happened would PLB concede that, yes, “lone nut” violence can be effective, productive and helpful to our cause? I think he would have to say yes according to his pragmatic calculation.

    Most “lone nut” violent political actions by Whites, whether we like them, despise them, or not, are in fact effective over the long term because it raises awareness of the anti-White criminal cabal agenda and their policies that prompt Whites to do such acts of desperation.

    We should not be in the business of condemning Whites who “flip out” in anger and take revenge. Our enemies will do that endlessly.

    Breivik, Dylan and the others, however immediately ineffective or misguided their actions, or not, reacted in defence of us Whites!

    Breivik, in particular, struck out violently, like a real man, against the destroyers of Norway. He killed the killers.

    ——————

    For my latest blog post, Henry Ford — Part 3: What I Learned About Business, click here >>> KATANA

  7. Bennis Mardens: “Of course violence works. In fact, it might be the only thing that works.”

    There is an interaction between violence, politics, money, psychology… The ZOG system relies on all of that at the same time. It isn’t just brute force against brute force. Most people who work for ZOG don’t even understand what they are doing. Without their support, ZOG is finished. And they may withdraw their support as they become race conscious.

    “Breivik was not one of us, from what I understand.”

    Counter-Currents published Breivik’s opening and closing statements made at his trial, in 2012.

    In his closing statement, Breivik said that “The attacks on July 22 were preventive attacks in defense of my ethnic group, the Norwegian indigenous people”.

    That makes him one of us.

    “You see the result of Roof’s violence. Serious moves toward gun control. The banning of the confederate flag. Talk of removal of statues of our national heroes. Insanity.”

    I would expect that to help White people realize that the government and the media are out to get them. Or do they have to face a government’s firing squad before they realize that something is wrong?

    “Lone wolf violence would have to be much more prevalent to have any effect.”

    Roof’s violence had a number of effects that you mentioned in your previous sentence.

    I think Breivik fits the description of lone wolf better than Roof. Roof is smart enough, judging from his manifesto, but he took an impulsive action. On the other hand, it’s impossible to have many people reiterate Breivik’s actions. If we start seeing widespread spontaneous grassroots violence from White people, it will be like Roof’s shooting in a church. The violence won’t be well focused and there will be lots of innocent victims. But that kind of violence will end the apathy and make it possible for White people to organize politically to defend their existence.

    But maybe there won’t be any widespread violence coming from White people. Maybe there will only be civil disobedience from Whites, mounting hostility from ZOG, and that will be enough to start people organizing.

  8. Rectification: “reiterate Breivik’s actions”

    the word I was looking for was: replicate

  9. This was an excellent post. Especially important is the understanding of what morality is, that it is a system defining what is good and bad that pertains only to a particular people. So often in issues related to WN, you see people throwing around the term “morality”, regarding this or that as “immoral” or “wrong”, which comes so often from the moral confusion that you have talked about here. This is a key observation.

  10. Deluded indeed. The blanket condemnation of violence and maintaining the highest of moral standards when the survival of your race is threatened is suicidal insanity. The cukservative mentality still afflicts too many people in the pro-white movement and Le Brun is a prime example.

    GJ and his Counter Currents groupies think that we can essay our way out of our predicament while apologizing and condemning any pro-whites who resort to violence or fail to live up to their standards

  11. Violence will be necessary for the survival of the race. But violent actions undertaken at a premature stage of the political struggle tend to be counterproductive, for they furnish the enemy with effective propaganda & a convient pretext for restricting our freedoms. With a few exceptions, violence will not be politically efficacious unless we first command a sufficient influence over our people.

    With that being said, it is no accident that the same race that demonises violence also aims at our extermination. If violence represented to the public as the greatest of all evils, as the chief problem with which the world is confronted, this is merely to break down all resistance to Jewish power. The Jews have more blood on their hands than anyone who has ever opposed them.

    The Jews have still a lot of blood to spill before they will finally be destroyed. When Jewish power begins to fall to pieces amid fierce opposition from all sides, the Jews will attempt to take the world down with them. The earth will be drenched with the blood of their victims. Some people, guided by providential influences, will be chosen to survive the disaster. These men and women will be gathered together in certain areas where the winds will protect them. Untainted by racial intermixture, their progeny will be strong and vigorous. They will bring forth the new Golden Age, which will last ten thousand years.

  12. When it comes to the survival of our people, fighting in reaction to war being declared on us (and it has been declared on us, in countless ways), the question of the morality of violence is moot. All that matters is destroying your enemy….or putting one Hell of a hurt on them. What’s Good for my people is their ability to thrive, to govern themselves, to live unmolested by any and all enemies. If violence is the means to that end, then violence is Good.
    We need millions of Dylan Roofs.

  13. To Jimski: If you are going to use a gun to save the White race, you’d better choose a better target than Dylann Roof did!

Comments are closed.