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.